Objectives The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the wettability of AH Plus and ThermaSeal Plus sealers on intraradicular dentine treated with different irrigating solutions. Methods Fifty anterior teeth were decoronated and split longitudinally. Each root half was divided into 5 groups (n = 10). Group I: 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl + QMix. Group II: 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl + 17% EDTA. Group III: 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl + 7% maleic acid. Group IV: 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl. Group V: 5 mL of distilled water. Irrigation regimens were performed for 1 min. Each specimen was placed inside a Dynamic Contact Angle Analyser. A controlled-volume droplet of sealer was placed on each specimen and the static contact angle was analysed. Results The contact angle made by both sealers with EDTA-irrigated dentine was significantly larger when compared to the other irrigants (P < 0.05). For ThermaSeal Plus, contact angles produced on maleic acid-, NaOCl- and distilled water-irrigated dentine were not significantly different, but were all significantly larger than the contact angle produced on QMix-irrigated dentine (P < 0.05). For AH Plus, contact angles produced on NaOCl- and distilled water-irrigated dentine were not significantly different, but were significantly larger than those made by maleic acid and QMix. Conclusion When used as a final irrigant, QMix favours the wetting of root canal dentine by both AH Plus and ThermaSeal Plus sealers. Maleic acid shows a promising result when compared to EDTA and NaOCl. Wettability of both sealers is the worst on EDTA-irrigated dentine. Clinical significance The present study highlights the effect of newer endodontic irrigating solutions on the wettability of sealers on to the root canal dentine, which is required for obtaining good obturation seal.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes