Evaluation of Radiopacity of Endosequence Bio-ceramic Sealer and AH Plus by Digital Radiography: Radiopacity of Endosequence Bio-ceramic Sealer and AH Plus by Digital Radiography

Saima Qureshi; Feroze Ali Kalhoro; Haresh Oad; Muhammad Ali Panhwar; Faryal Manzoor; Fahad Aslam Shujrah

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v7i8.3785

Authors

Saima Qureshi Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan
Feroze Ali Kalhoro Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan
Haresh Oad McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Muhammad Ali Panhwar Department of Community Dentistry, Muhammad Dental College, Mirpurkhas, Pakistan
Faryal Manzoor Department of Community Dentistry, Muhammad Dental College, Mirpurkhas, Pakistan
Fahad Aslam Shujrah Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Jinnah Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v7i8.3785

Keywords:

AH Plus, BC Sealer, Endodontic Sealers, Radiography

Abstract

Radiopacity is a key requirement for endodontic sealers to allow radiographic distinction between obturation material and surrounding tooth structures. American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and American Dental Association (ADA) mandate a minimum of 3 millimetres of aluminium (mm Al). Objectives: To compare, in vitro, the radiopacity of Endo-Sequence BC Sealer versus AH Plus using digital radiography on extracted human single-rooted teeth. Methods: An experimental in vitro study was conducted at the Department of Operative Dentistry, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro. A total of 60 single‑rooted teeth were selected using a non-probability convenience sampling method and allocated into two groups (n=30 each) without randomization. Care was taken to ensure that the two groups were comparable in terms of tooth type and root morphology and obturated with gutta-percha plus either Endosequence BC or AH Plus. After 7 days at 37°C/100 % humidity, radiopacity was expressed as millimetres of aluminium (mm Al). Data were compared using an independent-samples t-test (α = 0.05). Results: The sample analyzed consisted of 60 samples (30 samples per group). AH Plus demonstrated significantly higher radiopacity (6.94 ± 0.46 mm Al) compared to Endosequence BC (3.83 ± 0.35 mm Al). The confidence intervals were not overlapping (AH Plus: 6.77 7.10 mm Al; Endosequence BC: 3.71 ± 3.96 mm Al). The difference was statistically very significant (p<0.01). Conclusions: AH Plus demonstrated significantly higher and more consistent radiopacity than Endosequence BC, offering superior radiographic contrast and a wider safety margin for clinical detection of obturation quality.

References

Juntha S, Tungsawat P, Wongwatanasanti N, Suksaphar W, Lertnantapanya S. Evaluation of Setting Time, Flowability, Film Thickness, and Radiopacity of Experimental Monocalcium Silicate‐Based Root Canal Sealers. International Journal of Dentistry. 2024; 2024(1): 8541653. doi: 10.1155/2024/8541653.

Kapralos V, Camilleri J, Koutroulis A, Valen H, Ørstavik D, Sunde PT. Endodontic Sealers After Exposure to Chlorhexidine Digluconate: An Assessment of Physicochemical Properties. Dental Materials. 2024 Mar; 40(3): 420-30. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.11.019.

Dsouza TS, Shetty A, Pais KP, Chikkanna M, Almutairi FH, Alharbi YA et al. Evaluation of the Effect of Nanosilver and Bismuth oxide on the Radiopacity of a Novel Hydraulic Calcium Silicate-based Endodontic Sealer: An In vitro Study. Journal of Medical Physics. 2024 Oct; 49(4): 642-7. doi: 10.4103/jmp.jmp_158_24.

Limongi PB, Amaral AP, Pelegrine RA, Da Silveira Bueno CE, Kato AS, De Martin AS et al. Removal of Obturation Material from Root Canals Using a Combination of Reciprocal Instrumentation and Different Final Irrigation Techniques. Iranian Endodontic Journal. 2020; 15(3): 147.

Park SY, Kang MK, Choi HW, Shon WJ. Comparative Analysis of Root Canal Filling Debris and Smear Layer Removal Efficacy Using Various Root Canal Activation Systems During Endodontic Retreatment. Medicina. 2020 Nov; 56(11): 615. doi: 10.3390/medicina56110615.

Bilvinaite G, Drukteinis S, Brukiene V, Rajasekharan S. Immediate and Long-Term Radiopacity and Surface Morphology of Hydraulic Calcium Silicate-Based Materials. Materials. 2022 Sep; 15(19): 6635. doi: 10.3390/ma15196635.

Kandemir Demirci G, Çöven FO, Güneri P, Karavana SY, Nalbantsoy A et al. The Solubility, pH Value, Chemical Structure, Radiopacity, and Cytotoxicity of Four Different Root Canal Sealers: an in Vitro Study. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2023 Sep; 27(9): 5413-25. doi: 10.1007/s00784-023-05160-6.

Azhar S, Agarwal A, Dhingra S, Akhtar MS, Yadav S, Sandesh S et al. Evaluation of Radiopacity of Calcium Silicate-Based and Resin-Based Materials Using Direct Digital Radiography Along with an Aluminium Step Wedge. Cureus. 2024 Sep; 16(9). doi: 10.7759/cureus.70035.

Mert DB and Gençoğlu N. Evaluation of the Physical Properties of Different Bioceramic-Based Root Canal Sealers. Bezmialem Science. 2024 May; 12(2): 224-230. doi: 10.14235/bas.galenos.2024.84429.

Dželetović B, Milanović I, Antonijević Đ, Badnjar J, Petrov Z, Antić S et al. Radiopacity of Premixed and Two-Component Calcium Silicate-Based Root Canal Sealers. Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine. 2022; 26(3): 161-6. doi: 10.5937/bjdm2203161D.

Sen HG, Helvacioglu-Yigit D, Yilmaz A. Radiopacity Evaluation of Calcium Silicate Cements. BioMed Central Oral Health. 2023 Jul; 23(1): 491. doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03182-w.

Alamin MH, Yaghi SA, Al-Safi AF, Bouresly WR, Fakhruddin KS, Samaranayake LP et al. Comparative Analysis of Coronal Sealing Materials in Endodontics: Exploring Non-Eugenol Zinc Oxide-Based Versus Glass-Ionomer Cement Systems. European Journal of Dentistry. 2024 Oct; 18(04): 987-96. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1782695.

Malak AA, Masri YE, Al Ziab M, Zrara N, Baroud T, Salameh P. The Status of Clinical Trials Regarding Root Canal Sealers. Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics. 2024 Jan; 49(1). doi: 10.5395/rde.2024.49.e5.

Salama MT and Fulzele P. Study of Rheological Properties of Endodontic Sealers Used in Pediatric Dentistry. South Eastern European Journal of Public Health. 2025 Jan; 26(XXVI 2025): 1293-1298.

Singbal K, Pradeep P, Mangat AK. Comparative Evaluation of Physicochemical Properties of Various Root Canal Sealers: An in Vitro Study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. 2025 Apr; 28(4): 325-30. doi: 10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_866_24.

Jafari F and Jafari S. Composition and Physicochemical Properties of Calcium Silicate-Based Sealers: A Review Article. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry. 2017 Oct; 9(10): e1249. doi: 10.4317/jced.54103.

Mendes AT, Silva PB, Só BB, Hashizume LN, Vivan RR, Rosa RA et al. Evaluation of Physicochemical Properties of New Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer. Brazilian Dental Journal. 2018; 29: 536-40. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201802088.

Zordan‐Bronzel CL, Tanomaru‐Filho M, Rodrigues EM, Chávez‐Andrade GM, Faria G, Guerreiro‐Tanomaru JM. Cytocompatibility, Bioactive Potential, and Antimicrobial Activity of an Experimental Calcium Silicate‐Based Endodontic Sealer. International Endodontic Journal. 2019 Jul; 52(7): 979-86. doi: 10.1111/iej.13086.

Teixeira AB, Vidal CL, Albiasetti T, de Castro DT, Dos Reis AC. Influence of Adding Nanoparticles of Silver Vanadate on Antibacterial Effect and Physicochemical Properties of Endodontic Sealers. Iranian Endodontic Journal. 2019; 14(1): 7. doi: 10.1155/2019/4676354.

Almeida LH, Moraes RR, Morgental RD, Pappen FG. Are Premixed Calcium Silicate–Based Endodontic Sealers Comparable to Conventional Materials? A Systematic Review of in Vitro Studies. Journal of Endodontics. 2017 Apr; 43(4): 527-35. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.11.019.