Basic Research—Technology
A Comparative Study of Contact Angles of Four Different
Root Canal Sealers
Evangelos G. Kontakiotis, DDS, PhD,* Giorgos N. Tzanetakis, DDS,† and
Alexios L. Loizides, DDS, MSc‡
Abstract
The present in vitro study was conducted with the aim
of evaluating and comparing the contact angles of
three different types of root canal sealers—Roth 801,
AH26, and RSA RoekoSeal—with the contact angle of
a newly developed silicone-based root canal filling ma-
terial (Gutta-Flow) on dentin and gutta-percha surfaces
at two different time periods. The contact angles were
determined mathematically by measuring software and
were calculated from base width and height of the
droplet meniscus of each sealer. Under the conditions
of this study, Roth 801 and AH26 recorded lower values
of contact angles when root dentin surface was used as
the substrate. RSA RoekoSeal and Gutta-Flow seem to
spread similarly on dentin and gutta-percha surfaces,
although the contact angles of these silicone-based
sealers were found to be significantly higher than the
contact angles of Roth 801 and AH26 sealers. Accord-
ing to these findings, it can be concluded that conven-
tional root canal sealers (Roth 801 and AH26) may
passively have the potential for better wettability of
dentin and gutta-percha surfaces than that of silicone-
based sealers (RSA RoekoSeal and Gutta-Flow). This
fact means that Roth 801 and AH26 may have a better
spreading capacity under clinical conditions on the root
canal walls and gutta-percha surfaces. Application of a
sufficient load during lateral or vertical compaction
seems to be needed for RSA RoekoSeal and Gutta-Flow
to satisfactorily wet gutta-percha and dentin under
clinical conditions. (J Endod 2007;33:299 –302)
Key Words
Contact angle, root canal sealers, wetting behavior
*Assistant Professor, †Postgraduate student, ‡Endodon-
tist, Department of Endodontics, Dental School, University of
Athens, Greece.
Addrress requests for reprints to E. G. Kontakiotis, Dental
School, University of Athens, Antheon 2 Ano Patisia, 11143
Athens, Greece. E-mail address: ekontak@dent.uoa.gr.
0099-2399/$0 - see front matter
Copyright © 2007 by the American Association of
Endodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.joen.2006.11.016
JOE — Volume 33, Number 3, March 2007
T he attainment of an airtight seal in a root canal system is very important for the
long-term success of endodontic treatment (1–3). During the obturation of a root
canal system with gutta-percha, root canal sealer performs several functions to attain
and maintain this seal (4). These functions concern the filling of root canal wall irreg-
ularities such as apical ramifications and deltas as well as spaces where the primary root
canal filling material failed to reach. In addition, the sealer acts as a binding agent
between root canal walls and the main filling material (5, 6), and thus the interface
between either sealer and gutta-percha or sealer and dentin is of prime clinical impor-
tance.
The physicochemical properties of a root canal sealer may characterize its clinical
behavior during and after obturation of the root canal system (7–9). Among these
properties are satisfactory wetting and adequate flow rate (8, 10). Wetting means that an
interface contact is being formed between a liquid and a solid with a simultaneous
expulsion of air. The tendency of a liquid to spread on a solid surface is expressed with
the formation of a contact angle (11). Contact angle measurements provide a better
understanding of the interactions between solids and liquids. These interactions play a
key role in understanding not only material wettability, but also wetting, spreading, and
adsorption of liquids.
In vitro testing of physical properties is a basic prerequisite for the introduction of
a new material in clinical endodontic practice (12). Gutta-Flow is a newly established
silicone-based root canal filling material (Coltene/Whaledent, Langenau, Germany),
recently introduced for use in endodontics. It seems that Gutta-Flow is classified as a
type II material, intended to be used with or without core material or other sealer (4).
Gutta-Flow is a modification of the RSA RoekoSeal (Roeko Dental Products, Langenau,
Germany) and, according to the company, it contains very small gutta-percha particles
with a size of ⬍30 ␮m and sealer in its mass. The manufacturer claims an improved seal
because of the increased flowability and the fact that the material expands slightly on
setting, although until now no leakage study has yet been published about Gutta-Flow in
the literature. It has also been established that Gutta-Flow can be used alone to fill the
root canal with only one main gutta-percha cone in place. Furthermore, it was shown
that this material has an adequate adaptability to root canal walls (13). However, the
wetting behavior of this new material has not yet been tested by an in vitro study.
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate and compare the contact angles
of three different types of root canal sealers with respect to the contact angle of a newly
developed silicon-based root canal filling material (Gutta-Flow) without the application
of any load on dentin and gutta-percha surfaces at two different time periods.
Materials and Methods
The sealers tested in this study were Roth 801 (Roth International, Chicago, IL,
USA), AH26 silver free (Dentsply De Trey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), RSA RoekoSeal
(Roeko, Langenau, Germany), and Gutta-Flow (Coltene/Whaledent). All root canal
sealers and Gutta-Flow were prepared according to the manufacturers’ instructions
immediately before measurements as follows:
1. RSA RoekoSeal was mixed automatically with its mixing tip.
2. Gutta-Flow was prepared by vibrating the capsules for 30 seconds on a vibration
device (Silamat S5, Ivoclar Vivadent, Bendererstrasse, Lichtenstein).
3. AH26 and Roth 801 were prepared manually on a glass plate with a spatula,
according to manufacturer’s instructions for each sealer, respectively.
Contact Angles of Four Different Root Canal Sealers 299
Basic Research—Technology
Contact angle measurements were carried out on two types of
substrates: (1) dentin disks (2 mm thick) and (2) gutta-percha sur-
faces. Forty extracted intact fresh and caries-free mandibular molars
were used for the preparation in an equal number of dentin disks. The
extracted teeth were rinsed thoroughly under running tap water and
then placed in 10% formalin until use. After storage, the teeth were
cross-sectioned to expose the dentin of the root canal surface. The
dentin disks were prepared with the use of a diamond disk (Komet;
Brasseler GmbH, Lemgo, Germany) under running water. Polish paper
no. 0.5 was used to reduce the roughness of dentin surfaces. Ultrasonic
vibrations were applied to clean the dentin disks from any extra-organic
components in distilled water for 5 minutes, after which the dentin
specimens were placed in an incubator at 37°C to dry for the same
period of time (5 minutes). The samples were carried directly from the
incubator and placed into the measuring device (Fig. 1A).
Two glass plates and thermoplasticized gutta-percha (Easyflow,
Endodent, Duarte, CA, USA) were used to prepare 40 gutta-percha flat
smooth surfaces. The specimens (dentin disks, gutta-percha surfaces)
were positioned one by one on a flat glass surface in the measuring
device. Controlled (0.1 mL) volume droplets of each sealer were placed
onto ten dentin disks and onto ten gutta-percha surfaces. The volume of
each sealer was controlled by means of a micropipette (Eppendorf
Reference, adjustable-volume, Eppendorf AG, Hamburg, Germany).
This micropipette could be manually maneuvered through a tiny hole on
the top of the measuring device. Each specimen was photographed
(contra lighted) twice, at 5 and 60 minutes, after positioning of the
Figure 1. (A) Schematic illustration of the measuring device. (1) thermometer [23°C, 38% humidity, (2) micropipette, (3) flat glass plate, (4) dentin disk or
gutta-percha surface, (5) meniscus of the sealer droplet (6) pressure gauge, (7) photographic camera, (8) light source. (B) Representative images of the droplet
meniscus of each sealer on gutta-percha and dentin surfaces.
300 Kontakiotis et al.
droplets. The experiments were performed under standard conditions
of temperature and relative humidity. The temperature was kept con-
stant to within 1°C with the aid of a thermostat.
Images of the droplets of each sealer (Fig. 1B) were digitalized by
a scanner. After that, both base width (b) and height (h) of the droplet
meniscus were measured by SigmaScan Pro V 5.0.0 Software (1987–
1999 SPSS, Inc., Leesburg, FL, USA). The contact angles were calculated
according to the equation: a ⫽ 2 arc(cos 2h/b) (14, 15).
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Bonferroni
test of multiple comparisons, was used to investigate differences of the
distributional properties of gutta-percha and dentin with respect to
various root canal sealers and vice versa, at 5 and 60 minutes, respec-
tively. All tests were two sided and the level of significance was set at 5%.
Results
The mean values and standard deviations of contact angles for
each sealer on dentin disks and gutta-percha surfaces for the two ob-
servation periods (5 minutes and 1 hour) are shown in Tables 1a and
1b, respectively. Statistically significant higher values were recorded for
AH26 and Roth 801 on gutta-percha with respect to dentin after 5
minutes (p ⬍ 0.0001). On the contrary, RSA RoekoSeal recorded sig-
nificantly higher values on dentin, whereas the values of Gutta-Flow did
not differ significantly after 5 minutes between dentin and gutta-percha
(p ⫽ 0.146). After 1 hour, AH26 and Roth 801 continued recording
significantly higher values on gutta-percha compared to dentin (p ⫽
JOE — Volume 33, Number 3, March 2007
 Basic Research—Technology
TABLE 1a. Mean values and standard deviations (SDs) of contact angles of to that of gutta-percha. Accordingly, it can be substantiated that the
each sealer on dentin surface after 5 minutes and 1 hour, respectively surface energy forces of dentin overcome the forces of surface tension
Dentin of these sealers with respect to the surface energy forces of gutta-per-
cha. On the contrary, RSA RoekoSeal did not spread satisfactorily on
Mean SD Minimum Maximum dentin with respect to gutta-percha after 5 minutes, although after 1
5 minutes hour no significant differences were observed between gutta-percha
AH26 14.54 1.57 12.45 18.26 and dentin. In this case, the surface roughness of dentin and the initial
Roth 801 11.05 1.13 9.09 12.53
RSA Roekoseal 83.72 0.15 88.44 88.90
incomplete wetting of RSA RoekoSeal seem to play a more significant
Gutta-Flow 45.14 7.52 28.96 58.26 role. On the other hand, Gutta-Flow was found to spread similarly on
1 hour dentin and gutta-percha for the two observation periods. The addition of
AH26 8.51 0.73 7.89 9.73 very small particles of gutta-percha in its mass appears to improve the
Roth 801 9.23 1.74 6.78 19.49 wetting of the material compared to RSA RoekoSeal.
RSA Roekoseal 41.64 2.83 37.48 46.55
Gutta-Flow 38.75 6.93 28.18 47.23 In the second part of the study, statistically significant differences
were found between silicone-based sealers (RSA RoekoSeal and Gutta-
TABLE 1b. Mean values and standard deviations (SDs) of contact angles of Flow) and conventional root canal sealers (AH26 and Roth 801). Con-
each sealer on gutta-percha surface after 5 minutes and 1 hour, respectively ventional sealers documented generally lower contact angles than those
Gutta-percha (GP)
of silicone-based sealers on dentin and gutta-percha after 5 and 60
minutes, respectively. This finding was obtained perhaps as a result of
Mean SD Minimum Maximum the different syntheses of each sealer. Synthesis is a basic factor that
5 minutes influences critical surface tension (19). The presence of silicone pro-
AH26 18.23 1.45 15.57 19.64 duces possibly high surface tension forces, thus making the spreading of
Roth 801 16.03 1.58 13.09 17.84 these materials more difficult. However, Gutta-Flow seems to have a
RSA Roekoseal 45.54 5.53 36.58 52.13
Gutta-Flow 45.54 5.58 36.58 52.13
better spreading capacity than that of RSA RoekoSeal initially, possibly
1 hour because of the presence of very small gutta-percha particles. RSA RoekoSeal
AH26 12.61 1.19 7.91 12.34 at first demonstrated difficulty in satisfactorily wetting the substrates and
Roth 801 11.65 1.83 8.34 13.26 generally it had a delayed wetting behavior.
RSA Roekoseal 43.34 5.86 33.57 48.47 In the present study, the contact angle was measured using not only
Gutta-Flow 37.30 3.11 33.69 43.43
the liquid of the sealer (20) but also all the mixed sealer paste. This is
because the wetting behavior and specifically the contact angle could be
different between the liquid part and the mixed sealer paste. The mea-
0.003 and p ⫽ 0.004, respectively). However, RSA RoekoSeal did not surement times chosen in the present study (5 and 60 minutes) repre-
demonstrate any statistically significant difference after 1 hour between sent the time of beginning and completion of root canal obturation,
gutta-percha and dentin (p ⫽ 0.418), whereas Gutta-Flow continued respectively. Furthermore, the measurement of a single static contact
not to differ between gutta-percha and dentin (p ⫽ 0.313). angle to characterize the interaction between liquid and solid is thought
The multiple comparisons (Bonferroni test) after 5 minutes and 1 to be inadequate. For any given solid–liquid interaction there is a range
hour revealed that AH26 and Roth 801 exhibit significantly lower values of contact angles that may be found. These angles fall within a range with
than those of RSA RoekoSeal and Gutta-Flow (p ⬍ 0.0001) on gutta- advanced angles approaching a maximum value and receded angles
percha. Moreover, after 1 hour Gutta-Flow showed significantly lower approaching a minimum value (21, 22). At this point, it should be
values than RSA RoekoSeal on the gutta-percha surface (p ⫽ 0.0022). mentioned that, according to the manufacturers, the setting times of RSA
On dentin, AH26 and Roth 801 again exhibited significantly lower values RoekoSeal and Gutta-Flow are 50 and 10 minutes, respectively. This fact
than RSA RoekoSeal and Gutta-Flow after 5 minutes and 1 hour, respec- means that both these sealers were set at the time of second measure-
tively (p ⬍ 0.0001). Furthermore, after 5 minutes, Gutta-Flow had ments. From the above, it can be concluded that the value of contact
significantly lower values than RSA RoekoSeal (p ⬍ 0.0001). On the angle for RSA RoekoSeal and Gutta-Flow at 60 minutes is the final min-
contrary, the values of Gutta-Flow and RSA RoekoSeal on dentin sur- imum value that can be attained from these materials.
faces did not differ significantly after 1 hour (p ⫽ 0.999). The diagram Dentin disks were vibrated in an ultrasonic device for 5 minutes
of Fig. 2 schematically shows the wetting levels of each sealer on gutta- and then placed in an incubator at 37°C. This was done to remove all
percha and dentin for the two observation periods. extra-organic components and to dry the specimens, respectively. Dry-
ing of the specimens was done to simulate the clinical condition. The
Discussion time of 5 minutes was kept constant because water in the reaction with
Reliability of the experimental procedure followed in the present proteins in the acquired dentin may influence the results (14). More-
study was tested in previous studies and found to be particularly high over, an extended period of dehydration can appreciably affect the
(14). The main advantage is that measurements can be done using very contact angles for each sealer (23). In addition, the surfaces of dentin
small quantities of liquid. In the present study, all measurements were disks were free from any chemical treatment because it was previously
carried out on very small specimens using controlled volume (0.1 mL) reported that some irrigants (such as EDTA) can influence the dentin
of each sealer. This was done because any volumetric change could surface energy and the critical surface tension (20).
affect the value of contact angle (16, 17). Also, the entire experimental Contact angle measurement is a useful indicator of wetting behav-
procedure was performed under standard environmental conditions ior of any liquid tested (24). This angle is formed by a liquid at the
because the surface tension coefficient of liquids is influenced by tem- three-phase boundary where a liquid, gas, and solid intersect. Low
perature change and humidity (18). contact angle values indicate that the liquid (such as a sealer) wets well,
Roth 801 and AH26 were found to wet dentin better than gutta- whereas high values indicate poor wetting. If the value of contact angle
percha for the two observation periods. Based on these results, it ap- is ⬍90° the liquid (sealer) wet the substrate; if it is ⬎90° it is said to be
pears that the surface free energy of dentin is relatively high compared non-wetting. A zero contact angle represents complete wetting (25).

JOE — Volume 33, Number 3, March 2007 Contact Angles of Four Different Root Canal Sealers 301
Basic Research—Technology
Figure 2. Diagram of wetting levels for each sealer on gutta-percha and dentin after 5 minutes and 1 hour, respectively.
The lower the contact angle, the faster the liquid will spread on sub-
strates (dentin and gutta-percha surfaces) (26). The surface tension of
liquid, the surface free energy of solid, the homogeneity of the solid
surface, the surface contamination, and the surface roughness are the
five main factors that affect the contact angle between a liquid and a solid
surface (27).
Under the circumstances of the present in vitro study, conventional
sealers were found to wet dentin and gutta-percha better than silicone-
based sealers. These results were obtained without the application of
any load to the materials tested. Under the lateral compaction pressure
during the obturation of a root canal system, these materials may behave
in different ways. However, during the obturation using Gutta-Flow no
lateral compaction pressure is applied except the pressure during ver-
tical compaction at the end of the obturation. It seems that Gutta-Flow
needs to be vertically compacted very thoroughly to flow adequately
in small areas inside the root canal system. Nevertheless, contact
angle is only one of the physical properties that characterize the
clinical behavior of a sealer. Many other physical properties of this
new material (flow, viscosity, film thickness) should be investigated
in the future so that more safe and thorough conclusions can be
obtained.
References
1. Strindberg LZ. The dependence of the results of pulp therapy on certain factors. An
analytic study based on radiographic and clinical follow-up examinations (Thesis).
Acta Odontol Scand 1956;Suppl 21:14.
2. Schilder H. Filling root canals in three dimensions. Dent Clin North Am
1967;11:723– 44.
3. Sjögren U, Hägglund B, Sundqvist G, Wing K. Factors affecting the long-term results
of endodontic treatment. J Endod 1990;16:498 –504.
4. Himel TV, McSpadden TJ, Goodis EH. Instruments, materials and devices. In: Cohen
S, Hargreaves MK, eds. Pathways of the pulp, 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 2006:265–71.
5. Wennberg A, Orstavik D. Adhesion of root canal sealers to bovine dentine and gutta-
percha. Int Endod J 1990;23:13–9.
6. Lee KW, Williams MC, Camps JJ, Pashley DH. Adhesion of endodontic sealers to dentin
and gutta-percha. J Endod 2002;28:684 – 8.
7. McElroy DL. Physical properties of root canal filling materials. J Am Dent Assoc
1955;50:433– 40.
302 Kontakiotis et al.
8. Siqueira JF Jr, Favieri A, Gahyva SM, Moraes SR, Lima KC, Lopes HP. Antimicrobial
activity and flow rate of newer and established root canal sealers. J Endod
2000;26:274 –7.
9. McMichen FR, Pearson G, Rahbaran S, Gulabivala K. A comparative study of selected
physical properties of five root-canal sealers. Int Endod J 2003;36:629 –35.
10. Weisman MI. A study of the flow rate of ten root canal sealers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral
Pathol 1970;29:255– 61.
11. Huntsberger JR. Surface energy, wetting and adhesion. Adhesion 1981;12:3–12.
12. Heuer AM, Miserendino JL. Instruments and materials. In: Cohen S, Burns RC, eds.
Pathways of the pulp, 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 1987:421– 4.
13. ElAyouti A, Achleithner C, Lost C, Weiger R. Homogeneity and adaptation of a new
gutta-percha paste to root canal walls. J Endod 2005;31:687–90.
14. De Jong HP, Van Pelt AWJ, Arends J. Contact angle measurements on human
enamel—an in vitro study of influence of pellicle and storage period. J Dent Res
1982;61:11–3.
15. Dumitrascu N, Borcia C. Determining the contact angle between liquids and cylin-
drical surfaces. J Colloid Interface Sci 2006;294:418 –22.
16. Good RJ, Koo MN. The effect of drop size on contact angle. J Colloid Interface Sci
1979;71:283.
17. Vafaei S, Podowski MZ. Analysis of the relationship between liquid droplet size and
contact angle. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2005;113:133– 46.
18. Newmann AW. Contact angles and their temperature dependence. Adv Colloid Inter-
face Sci 1974;4:105–91.
19. Ozcelik B, Tasman F, Ogan C. A comparison of the surface tension of calcium hy-
droxide mixed with different vehicles. J Endod 2000;26:500 –2.
20. Nakashima K, Terata R. Effect of pH modified EDTA solution to the properties of
dentin. J Endod 2004;30:47–9.
21. Extrand CW, Kumagai Y. An experimental study of contact angle hysteresis. J Colloid
Interface Sci 1997;191:378 – 83.
22. Lam CN, Wu R, Li D, Hair ML, Neumann AW. Study of the advancing and receding
contact angles: liquid sorption as a cause of contact angle hysteresis. Adv Colloid
Interface Sci 2002;96:169 –91.
23. Rosales JI, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ, et al. Acid-etching and hydration influence on
dentin roughness and wettability. J Dent Res 1999;78:1554 –9.
24. Donskoi AA, Shashkina MA, Zaikov GE. Contact angle, wettability and adhesion, vol.
3. Philadelphia, PA: Coronet Books, 2003.
25. Extrand CW. Contact angles and their hysteresis as a measure of liquid-solid adhe-
sion. Langmuir 2004;20:4017–21.
26. Basrani B, Ghanem A, Tjaderhane L. Physical and chemical properties of chlorhexi-
dine and calcium hydroxide-containing medications. J Endod 2004;30:
413–7.
27. Johnson RE Jr, Dettre RH. Wettability and contact angles. In: Matijevic E, ed. Surface
and colloid science, vol. 2. New York: Wiley–Interscience 1969:85–153.
JOE — Volume 33, Number 3, March 2007