Journal of Research in Dental
and Maxillofacial Sciences
Volume 11, Issue 2 (6-2026)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2026, 11(2): 107-113 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Abbasnejad S, Abbasi F, Araghi S, Tour Savadkouhi S. Marginal Adaptation of GuttaFlow 2, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and AH Plus in the Apical Third of Human Teeth Obturated by the Single-Cone Technique. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2026; 11 (2) :107-113
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-1348-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-1348-en.html
1- Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Islamic Azad University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Sayeh.abbasnejad@gmail.com
2- Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Islamic Azad University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Islamic Azad University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (6 Views)
Background and Aim: This study compared the marginal adaptation of GuttaFlow 2, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and AH Plus in the apical third of human single-canal teeth obturated by the single-cone technique.
Materials and Methods: This in vitro study evaluated 51 eligible extracted single-canal maxillary incisors. The teeth underwent biomechanical preparation with BioRaCe rotary system to #40/4%, and were then randomly divided into 3 experimental groups (n=17) of GuttaFlow 2, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and AH Plus. The canals were rinsed with 17% EDTA for 1 minute, 5.25% NaOCl for 30 seconds, and 2 mL of distilled water for smear layer removal, and were obturated with the single-cone obturation technique. The roots were then transversely sectioned at 3 and 6 mm from the apex, and the gap at the root filling material-canal wall interface was measured under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (alpha=0.05).
Results: At 3 mm distance from the apex, the mean gap size in the GuttaFlow Bioseal group (12.65±4.919 µm) was significantly larger than that in GuttaFlow (7.7±2.969 µm) and AH Plus (6.89±4.58 µm) groups (P<0.05), but no significant difference was detected at 6 mm from the apex among the three groups (P=0.121).
Conclusion: Under the limitations of this in vitro study, the results indicated that GuttaFlow Bioseal had poorer marginal adaptation than AH Plus and GuttaFlow at 3 mm from the apex; however, marginal adaptation of sealers was not significantly different at 6 mm from the apex.
Materials and Methods: This in vitro study evaluated 51 eligible extracted single-canal maxillary incisors. The teeth underwent biomechanical preparation with BioRaCe rotary system to #40/4%, and were then randomly divided into 3 experimental groups (n=17) of GuttaFlow 2, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and AH Plus. The canals were rinsed with 17% EDTA for 1 minute, 5.25% NaOCl for 30 seconds, and 2 mL of distilled water for smear layer removal, and were obturated with the single-cone obturation technique. The roots were then transversely sectioned at 3 and 6 mm from the apex, and the gap at the root filling material-canal wall interface was measured under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (alpha=0.05).
Results: At 3 mm distance from the apex, the mean gap size in the GuttaFlow Bioseal group (12.65±4.919 µm) was significantly larger than that in GuttaFlow (7.7±2.969 µm) and AH Plus (6.89±4.58 µm) groups (P<0.05), but no significant difference was detected at 6 mm from the apex among the three groups (P=0.121).
Conclusion: Under the limitations of this in vitro study, the results indicated that GuttaFlow Bioseal had poorer marginal adaptation than AH Plus and GuttaFlow at 3 mm from the apex; however, marginal adaptation of sealers was not significantly different at 6 mm from the apex.
Keywords: Dental Marginal Adaptation, Epoxy Resin-Based Root Canal Sealer, GuttaFlow, Root Canal Therapy
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
Endodontics
References
1. Muliyar S, Shameem KA, Thankachan RP, Francis PG, Jayapalan CS, Hafiz KA. Microleakage in endodontics. J Int Oral Health. 2014 Nov-Dec;6(6):99-104.
2. Savadkouhi ST, Bakhtiar H, Ardestani SE. In vitro and ex vivo microbial leakage assessment in endodontics: A literature review. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016 Nov-Dec;6(6):509-16. [DOI:10.4103/2231-0762.195516] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Ramamurthy P, Rath A, Sidhu P, Fernandes B, Nettem S, Fee PA, et al. Sealants for preventing dental caries in primary teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb;2(2):Cd012981. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD012981.pub2] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Modaresi J, Mokhtari F, Khodarahmi E. In vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation of cold ceramic sealer with the single-cone obturation technique versus AH-26 sealer with the lateral compaction technique in single-canal teeth. BMC Oral Health. 2025 Jan;25(1):69. [DOI:10.1186/s12903-024-05314-2] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Jokstad A. Secondary caries and microleakage. Dent Mater. 2016 Nov;32(1):11-25. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.006] [PMID]
6. Upadhyay V, Upadhyay M, Panday RK, Chturvedi TP, Bajpai U. A SEM evaluation of dentinal adaptation of root canal obturation with GuttaFlow and conventional obturating material. Indian J Dent Res. 2011 Nov-Dec;22(6):881. [DOI:10.4103/0970-9290.94696] [PMID]
7. Komabayashi T, Colmenar D, Cvach N, Bhat A, Primus C, Imai Y. Comprehensive review of current endodontic sealers. Dent Mater J. 2020 Sep;39(5):703-20. [DOI:10.4012/dmj.2019-288] [PMID]
8. Adhikari HD, Jain S. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of marginal adaptation of AH-Plus, GuttaFlow, and RealSeal at apical one-third of root canals - Part II: Core-sealer interface. J Conserv Dent. 2018 Jan-Feb;21(1):90-4.
9. El Sayed M. Comparing sectional and total dentin bond strengths of three endodontic sealers after using the single-cone obturation technique: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2024 Oct;25(10):976-82. [DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3765] [PMID]
10. Kunam D, Uppalapati Y, Ponnapalli AT, Krishna C, Bode Y, Yadatha S. Comparative evaluation of wettability of AH plus, Ceraseal and Guttaflow bioseal root canal sealers on root canal dentin: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2024 Oct;27(10):1021-5. [DOI:10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_484_24] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Gpv S, Ghosh M, Chatterjee R, Gajpal A, Mustafa M, Almokhatieb AA. Field emission scanning electron microscope analysis of the marginal adaptation of various root canal sealers at the dentin-sealer and sealer-gutta percha interfaces at three root canal levels: An in vitro study. Cureus. 2024 Aug;16(8):e66156. [DOI:10.7759/cureus.66156]
12. Eissa MH, Boghdadi R, Bedier M. Evaluation of the push-out bond strength and penetration of Guttaflow bBoseal, Endoseal MTA and Guttaflow 2 versus AH-Plus root canal sealers into the dentinal tubules in mandibular premolar teeth (a randomized in vitro comparative study). Adv Dent J. 2024 Jan;6(1):181-92. [DOI:10.21608/adjc.2023.191652.1251]
13. Behery K, Elbaz A, Ali SM, Elgendy AY. Comparative histological and immuno-histochemical analysis of the biocompatibility of three root canal sealers: An in vivo study. Egypt Dent J. 2024 Apr;70(2):2019-29. [DOI:10.21608/edj.2024.261680.2874]
14. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971 Aug;32(2):271-5. [DOI:10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1] [PMID]
15. Shinde A, Kokate S, Hegde V. Comparative assessment of apical sealing ability of three different endodontic sealers: A scanning electron microscopic study. J Pierre Fauchard Acad (India Section). 2014 Sep;28(3):78-82. [DOI:10.1016/j.jpfa.2014.09.002]
16. Rajakumaran A, Ramesh H, Ashok R, Balaji L, Ganesh A. Smear layer removal and microhardness alteration potential of a naturally occurring antioxidant - An in vitro study. Cureus. 2019 Jul;11(7):e5241. [DOI:10.7759/cureus.5241] [PMID] [PMCID]
17. Akcay M, Arslan H, Durmus N, Mese M, Capar ID. Dentinal tubule penetration of AH Plus, iRoot SP, MTA Fillapex, and Guttaflow bioseal root canal sealers after different final irrigation procedures: A confocal microscopic study. Lasers Surg Med. 2016 Jan;48(1):70-6. [DOI:10.1002/lsm.22446] [PMID]
18. Raghuwanshi S, Jain P, Patni PM, Pandey SH, Hiremath H, Baghel S. Dentinal adaptation of warm thermoplastic obturating material and cold thermoplastic obturating material: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2019 Jan-Mar;10(1):64-8. [DOI:10.4103/ccd.ccd_312_18] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Elias I, Guimarães GO, Caldeira CL, Gavini G, Cai S, Akisue E. Apical sealing ability comparison between GuttaFlow and AH Plus: in vitro bacterial and dye leakage. J Health Sci Inst. 2010 Jan-Mar;28(1):77-9.
20. Zare S, Shen I, Zhu Q, Ahn C, Primus C, Komabayashi T. Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of single-cone obturation with three sealers. Restor Dent Endod. 2021 May;46(2):e25. [DOI:10.5395/rde.2021.46.e25] [PMID] [PMCID]
21. Huang Y, Orhan K, Celikten B, Orhan AI, Tufenkci P, Sevimay S. Evaluation of the sealing ability of different root canal sealers: a combined SEM and micro-CT study. J Appl Oral Sci. 2018 Jan-Feb;26:e20160584. [DOI:10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0584] [PMID] [PMCID]
22. Sadr S, Golmoradizadeh A, Raoof M, Tabanfar MJ. Microleakage of single-cone gutta-percha obturation technique in combination with different types of sealers. Iran Endod J. 2015 Summer;10(3):199-203.
23. Punitha P, Shashikala K. Evaluation of the adaptation of resin based sealers epiphany, AH plus and AH 26 to the root canal dentin by scanning electron microscope. Indian J Stomatol. 2011 Dec;2(4):207.
24. Wu MK, van der Sluis LW, Wesselink PR. A 1-year follow-up study on leakage of single-cone fillings with RoekoRSA sealer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006 May;101(5):662-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.03.013] [PMID]
25. Lee SH, Oh S, Al-Ghamdi AS, Mandorah AO, Kum KY, Chang SW. Sealing ability of AH Plus and GuttaFlow Bioseal. Bioinorg Chem Appl. 2020 Jan;2020:8892561. [DOI:10.1155/2020/8892561] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Yanpiset K, Banomyong D, Chotvorrarak K, Srisatjaluk RL. Bacterial leakage and micro-computed tomography evaluation in round-shaped canals obturated with bioceramic cone and sealer using matched single cone technique. Restor Dent Endod. 2018 Aug;43(3):e30. [DOI:10.5395/rde.2018.43.e30] [PMID] [PMCID]
27. Naji AN, Al-Gharrawi HA. Comparison of the sealing ability of GuttaFlow Bioseal with different obturation systems (an in vitro study). J Int Dent Med Res. 2020 Dec;13(4):1632-6.
28. Kaul S, Kumar A, Badiyani BK, Sukhtankar L, Madhumitha M, Kumar A. Comparison of sealing ability of bioceramic sealer, AH Plus, and GuttaFlow in conservatively prepared curved root canals obturated with single-cone technique: An in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021 Jun;13(Suppl 1):S857-60. [DOI:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_52_21] [PMID] [PMCID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |