Aim: To compare the sealing ability of the endodontic sealers AH Plus, Sealer 26 and Endofill in premolar teeth of dogs exposed to the oral cavity after post-preparation.
Methodology: Forty teeth with two canals each underwent root canal cleaning and shaping. Before filling, the canals were randomly distributed into three groups according to the sealer to be used: Group 1 - AH Plus; Group 2 - Sealer 26; and Group 3 - Endofill (Dentsply, Indústria e Comércio Ltda.). Immediately after filling, the gutta percha and sealer were partially removed from the canals, leaving material only in the apical third of the root. The teeth were temporarily sealed with glass ionomer sealer for 72 h to ensure setting. The coronal seal was then removed and the canals were exposed to the oral cavity for 45 days. The animals were euthanased and their mandibles and maxillae were removed. After abundant irrigation with distilled water, the canals were dried and filled with India ink. The teeth were sealed again for 96 h before extraction. The roots of the extracted premolars were separated and stored in labelled test tubes. The roots were cleared and the extent of dye penetration was measured with a 20x stereoscopic magnifying lens.
Results: Statistical analysis revealed that there were significant differences between the sealers studied (P < 0.001). Means for the extent of dye penetration for AH Plus, Endofill and Sealer 26 were, respectively, 0.13, 2.27 and 3.08 mm.
Conclusions: After 45 days exposure to the oral cavity, none of the sealers was capable of preventing leakage and coronal dye penetration. There were significant differences between the sealers studied, in terms of mean dye penetration.