A study of the rheological properties of endodontic sealers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim To test the hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference in viscosity-related measures of endodontic sealers or change in these with strain rate, internal diameter or powder : liquid ratio in a capillary system. Methodology Materials used were Apexit, Tubliseal EWT, Grossman's sealer and Ketac-endo. Viscosity-related measures were tested in a two-plate test, and in a capillary rheometer. The mean values (n = 12) for thickness and diameter of material formed between two glass plates were tested with one-way analysis of variance. Pressure was applied to a capillary rheometer at strain rates 5 and 10 mm min(-1) in tubes of internal diameter 0.6 and 1.2 mm. Results Tubliseal EWT had a thinner film thickness than the other sealers (alpha = 0.05). The difference in diameter between Tubliseal EWT and the other sealers was significant apart from Apexit. Increased strain rate gave a significant increase (alpha = 0.05) in the flow of all sealers. Narrower tubes produced increased velocity, which was significant for all sealers, and reduced volumetric flow, which was significant for all sealers except Grossman's 2 : 1 (Wilcoxon signed rank test). Reduction in powder : liquid ratio of Grossman's significantly increased flow in narrow tubes and at higher strain rate (Mann-Whitney test). Conclusion There was a significant difference between the flow of Tubliseal EWT and the other sealers tested in the two-plate test; capillary flow was affected by sealer, internal diameter, strain rate and powder : liquid ratio. The null hypotheses were rejected.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)499 - 504
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Endodontic Journal
Volume38
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2005

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A study of the rheological properties of endodontic sealers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this