Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the sealing capacity of the endodontic sealers
AH Plus Dentsply, Germany),
Sealer 26, and
Endofill Dentsply, Brazil), using gutta-percha as control.
Methods: Sixty human single-root extracted teeth were instrumented, and specifically filled. The post-preparation was performed with a hot plugger leaving 5 mm of remaining obturation.
S. aureus (ATCC 25923) was chosen as biological indicator of leakage. The model of study consisted of an upper chamber, with a standard bacterial suspension; the prepared tooth; and a lower chamber containing
Brain Heart Infusion (
BHI, Difco, USA), where the apex was immersed. The specimens were stored at 37° C, and the experiment was observed daily for 90 days;
BHI changes were looked for. All assays were done under aseptic conditions and bacterial viability control was done throughout the study. Statistical Mann-Whitney and Fisher Exact tests (
a=0.05) were applied to the time and to the association groups x leakage data, respectively.
Results: The control group showed turbidity in all cases. Group
AH Plus showed turbidity in one case after 50 days, and the average time for
Sealer 26 and
Endofill teeth groups was 54.14 and 55.60 days (p=0.64), respectively. The percentages of positive results were 5.26% for
AH Plus , 41.17% for
Sealer 26 , and 27.70% for
Endofill teeth. Statistically significant performance was observed with
AH Plus when compared to
Sealer 26 sealing effect (p=0.01), whereas
Endofill effectiveness showed no difference in relation to that of
AH Plus (p=0.78) and of
Sealer 26 (p=0.49).
Conclusion: The tested materials were unable to block the leakage, however,
AH Plus seems to have better potential to control bacterial infiltration, if compared to
Sealer 26 and
Endofill.