Comparison of two observational methods, scanning electron and confocal laser scanning microscopies, in the adhesive interface analysis of endodontic sealers to root dentine

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the accuracy of confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) during the analysis of the adhesive interface integrity and intratubular penetration of root canal sealers to radicular dentine.

Materials and methods

Twenty roots of human maxillary incisors were prepared and distributed into two groups (n = 10), followed by filling with gutta-percha and Endofill (G1) or AH Plus (G2). After 7 days, roots were sectioned and analyzed under CLSM and SEM. Score systems were used to evaluate the adhesive interface integrity (0–4) and sealer intratubular penetration (0–3). Data were submitted to Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and Kendall correlation statistical tests (α = 5%).

Results

In the adhesive interface analysis, CLSM was similar (P = 0.157) to SEM for Endofill; however, the results were different for AH Plus (P = 0.029). Intratubular penetration had significant difference between observational methods for both sealers (P < 0.0001). Correlation analysis between SEM and CLSM for adhesive interface was moderate for Endofill and low for AH Plus. Intratubular penetration was low for both sealers.

Conclusion

SEM and CLSM analysis had similar results when sealers were compared, with a more homogeneous adhesive interface, and greater intratubular penetration for AH Plus. Comparison between observational methods demonstrated low positive correlation for adhesive interface and intratubular penetration analysis.

Clinical relevance

A proper interface formed between sealer and dentine is very important for final quality of root canal filling. Observational methods which allow an accurate analysis of this interface must be selected to assess such features.

from #ORL-AlexandrosSfakianakis via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2mKON86