Experimental amine-epoxide sealer: a physicochemical study in comparison with AH Plus and EasySeal.

Aim: To compare selected physicochemical and biological properties of an experimental sealer with those of two commercially available sealers.

Methodology: AH Plus and EasySeal were used as model materials for commercially available amine-epoxide sealers. They were mixed as stated by the manufacturer. The two components of experimental sealer EvoSeal A were mixed 1 : 1 vol%. The setting time was determined in two different ways: first, by setting of sealers in a temperature- and moisture-controlled environment followed by testing with a Gilmore needle and secondly, by oscillating measurements of setting behaviour using a rheometer. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) of the sealer was performed for comparison of thermal properties. Flow and film thickness were determined by applying pressures of 100 g and 15.3 kg, respectively, on the materials between two glass plates and measuring the diameters of the compressed sealer and the thickness with a micrometer gauge. Solubility of set materials was conducted by layering the samples with water, storing in a temperature- and humidity-controlled environment and evaporating the solvent. The solved sealer parts were then weighed. The radiopacity was measured in an X-ray experiment comparing radiopacity of a cured sealer to an aluminium step wedge. Volume shrinkage was defined by measuring the densities of samples before and after setting. The film thickness, fluidity, curing time, radiopacity and solubility of the test materials were performed as specified in DIN EN ISO 6876:2010 draft. The volume shrinkage was determined in a method adapted from standard DIN 13907:2007-01. Antibacterial activity was tested against Gram-positive Streptococcus oralis cultures in a contact test based on standard ISO 22196:2011 (E). Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U-test where applicable. Significant differences were determined with P < 0.05.

Results: The experimental sealer, EvoSeal A, reached standard specifications. In terms of film thickness, the highest value was measured for EvoSeal A with a film thickness of 27 μm, comparing to 6 μm for EasySeal (P ≤ 0.001) and 8 μm for AH Plus (P ≤ 0.001). Comparing the flow, all values corresponded to EasySeal with a diameter of 17.3 mm. The only significant difference was determined for AH Plus compared to EvoSeal A (P = 0.0353). Volume shrinkage of EvoSeal A was 48% smaller compared to EasySeal and approximately 20% lower compared to AH Plus. The shortest curing time was determined for EvoSeal A (3.0 h) followed by EasySeal (4.1 h) and AH Plus (24 h). For all groups, significant differences were observed (P ≤ 0.001). EvoSeal A had a significantly higher radiopacity than EasySeal (P ≤ 0.001) but significantly lower values than AH Plus (P ≤ 0.001). The solubility of AH Plus and EvoSeal A was <0.5% (P = 0.2435). Compared to EasySeal with a solubility of 2.7%, significant differences were observed (P ≤ 0.02). Three weeks after setting, EasySeal and EvoSeal A still had an antibacterial effect against S. oralis in contrast to AH Plus. In this respect, comparing AH Plus with EvoSeal A and EasySeal, respectively, significant differences were observed (P ≤ 0.001). No significant differences between EasySeal with EvoSeal A (P = 0.540) were determined.

Conclusions: The physical and chemical properties of the experimental sealer EvoSeal A were comparable to the two commercially established sealers EasySeal and AH Plus.