Basic Research–Technology
An In Vitro Comparison of Microleakage between Resilon
and Gutta-Percha with a Fluid Filtration Model
Jaron R. Wedding, DDS, MSD, Cecil E. Brown, DDS, MS, Joseph J. Legan, DDS, MS,
B. Keith Moore, PhD, and Mychel M. Vail, DDS, MSD
Abstract
This investigation compared microleakage of teeth ob-
turated with gutta-percha and teeth obturated with
Resilon by using a fluid filtration model. Forty-six hu-
man, single-rooted, mandibular premolars were stud-
ied. Teeth were randomly assigned to 2 experimental
groups of 21 teeth each, designated as group G (gutta-
percha) and group R (Resilon). Two control groups,
both containing 2 teeth, served as positive and nega-
tive controls. Group G, gutta-percha and AH 26 sealer,
and group R, Resilon and Epiphany sealer, were obtu-
rated by using warm vertical condensation. The speci-
mens were tested for microleakage with an in vitro fluid
filtration apparatus at 10 psi at 4 intervals: 1, 7, 30, and
90 days. A two-way repeated measures analysis of
variance model with fixed effects for group, time, and
group by time interaction was used to analyze mi-
croleakage data. This study demonstrated that canals
obturated with Resilon and Epiphany sealer leaked
statistically less than canals obturated with gutta-per-
cha and AH 26 sealer at day 1 (P ⬍ .0014), day 7 (P ⬍
.0002), day 30 (P ⬍ .0015), and day 90 (P ⬍ .0170).
The mean fluid microleakage for both group G and
group R increased from day 1 to day 90. The results
showed that Resilon is a suitable replacement for gutta-
percha as a root canal filling material on the basis of its
increased resistance to fluid microleakage. (J Endod 2007;
33:1447–1449)
Key Words
Fluid filtration model, microleakage, Resilon
From the Department of Endodontics, Indiana University
School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Address requests for reprints to Dr Mychel M. Vail, Indiana
University School of Dentistry, Endodontics DS 302, 1121 W
Michigan St, Indianapolis, IN 46202. E-mail address: mvail@
iupui.edu.
0099-2399/$0 - see front matter
Copyright © 2007 by the American Association of
Endodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.joen.2007.08.021
JOE — Volume 33, Number 12, December 2007
O bturation of a prepared root canal eliminates all avenues of leakage from the oral
cavity and periodontal tissues, sealing any residual irritants that remain within the
root canal system after cleaning and shaping (1). Several obturation techniques are
used to create a three-dimensional filling of the prepared root canal system.
Recently a thermoplastic synthetic polymer-based root canal filling material was
introduced. The resin core filling material, Resilon (Resilon Research LLC, Madison,
CT), handles like gutta-percha. Obturation with Resilon cones is accomplished by use
of Epiphany primer (Pentron Clinical Technologies, LLC, Wallingford, CT) and Epiph-
any resin-based sealer (Pentron Clinical Technologies). Shipper et al. (2) compared
the bacterial leakage of gutta-percha and Resilon and found that Resilon had a mean
leakage of 7%–13%, whereas gutta-percha had a mean leakage of 73%–93%. They
attribute the resistance to leakage and increased sealing properties to the “mono-
block” created by the affinity of the Resilon core to the Epiphany resin-based sealer.
Shipper et al. (3) reiterated the mono-block concept in an in vivo study with dogs,
showing less apical periodontitis with teeth obturated with Resilon.
This study compared the microleakage of gutta-percha obturated teeth versus
Resilon obturated teeth by using a fluid filtration model first described by Derkson et al.
(4) in 1986 and revised in 1993 by Wu et al. (5). The fluid filtration method was chosen
because it provides a quantitative measurement of microleakage over time without
sacrificing the samples.
Materials and Methods
Forty-six human, single-rooted, mandibular premolars were stored and refriger-
ated in a sealed container with sterile saline (Fisher Scientific Co, Fair Lawn, NJ) during
the study. All teeth were collected from the Oral Health Department under the Clarian/
IUPUI Institutional Review Board. Radiographs were taken in mesial-distal direction,
confirming a type I anatomy. After debridement of the root surfaces, the teeth were
immersed in 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (Clorox Co, Oakland, CA) for 30 minutes. The
crowns of the teeth were resected at the cementoenamel junction with a silicon carbide
disk (Brassler USA, Savannah, GA).
Working length was determined as 1 mm short of the anatomic foramen with a
number 10K-Type file (Kerr, Remulus, MI). Gates Glidden drills size 2 and 3 (Bras-
seler) were used to flare the coronal half, and the root canals were prepared with
ProFile 0.04 tapered rotary files (Dentsply, Tulsa, OK) until a #40 file reached the
working length. One milliter of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite was used as irrigation
between each file. After instrumentation, the smear layer was removed by rinsing with
2.0 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solution, followed by a final rinse with
2.0 mL of sterile water.
Specimens were randomly assigned to 2 groups of 21 teeth. The 2 groups, desig-
nated as group G (gutta-percha; Roydent, Johnson City, TN) and group R (Resilon),
served as the experimental groups. Two groups both containing 2 specimens served as
positive and negative controls. The control groups were instrumented with no obtura-
tion material in the canals. However, the negative control teeth were coated with 2 layers
of nail varnish.
Group G were obturated by using a #40 .04 gutta-percha cone and AH-26 resin
sealer with warm vertical condensation. This was done by using a System-B heat source
(Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK) and Schilder pluggers. Canals were filled to a total of 5.0 mm
from the working length with an Obtura III gun (Sybron Endodontics, Fenton, MO) and
Comparison of Microleakage with a Fluid Filtration Model 1447
Basic Research–Technology
Schilder pluggers. Root fillings were allowed to set for a minimum of 8
hours at 37°C per manufacturer’s recommendation. Group R were
obturated with Resilon core material and Epiphany sealer per manufac-
turer’s instructions. Obturation technique was done as previously de-
scribed. All specimens from group R were light-cured after obturation
for 40 seconds with an LED curing light (Patterson, St Paul, MN).
Radiographs confirmed length and density of the fill for both
groups. To prevent solubility of obturation material, a dry cotton pellet
and 3.0 mm of Cavit (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) was placed in the
chamber in all experimental teeth. The teeth were stored in sterile saline
to prevent dehydration before testing.
Fluid Filtration Test
By using a fluid filtration method described by Wu et al. (5), pieces
of Lucite acrylic (2.0 ⫻ 2.0 ⫻ 0.6 cm) served as a platform for spec-
imen mounting. A single hole was drilled in the center of the acrylic
platform with a size #55 drill bit. The 18-gauge stainless steel tube was
cemented in place to the acrylic platform with cyanoacrylate cement
(Zapit; Dental Ventures of America Inc, Anaheim Hills, CA). Cavit and
the cotton pellet were removed, leaving 5 mm of canal space. The tooth
was then secured with cyanoacrylate cement over the 18-gauge stainless
steel tube.
Statistical Methods
The mean of the 4 measurements of microleakage of each speci-
men at each time was used for analysis. Microleakage for each group
was summarized by the mean, standard deviation, median, minimum
value, and maximum value. A two-way repeated measures analysis of
variance model was used to analyze the microleakage data. Least square
mean microleakage for groups at each time point was compared. To
assess repeatability of measuring microfiltration, the intraclass corre-
lation coefficient (ICC) was calculated with the 4 measurements of each
specimen at each time point. One minus the ICC is the proportion of
variability that comes from repeatedly measuring the same samples. The
closer the ICC number is to 1, the greater is the reliability.
Sample Size
A sample size of 21 in each group has an 80% power to detect a
difference in means of 0.644 ␮L/min, the difference between gutta-
percha mean microfiltration of 0.645 ␮L/min, and Resilon mean mi-
crofiltration of 0.001 ␮L/min.
Results
For each day tested (1, 7, 30, and 90), the positive controls leaked
indefinitely, whereas the negative controls did not leak. This confirmed
the reliability of the fluid filtration apparatus. The ICCs for days 1, 7, 30,
and 90 were 0.76, 0.96, 0.94, and 0.94, respectively.
Figure 1 shows a summary of mean linear fluid movement in ␮L/
min1 for gutta-percha and Resilon. The mean fluid microleakage for the
gutta-percha group for days 1, 7, 30, and 90 was 0.0223 ␮L/min,
0.0249 ␮L/min, 0.0254 ␮L/min, and 0.0251 ␮L/min, respectively. The
standard deviations for gutta-percha at days 1, 7, 30 and 90 were 0.60,
0.59, 0.55, and 0.48, respectively. The mean fluid microleakage for the
Resilon group for days 1, 7, 30, and 90 was 0.0154 ␮L/min, 0.0170
␮L/min, 0.0186 ␮L/min, and 0.0196 ␮L/min, respectively. The stan-
dard deviations for Resilon at days 1, 7, 30, and 90 days were 0.58, 0.63,
0.68, and 0.69, respectively.
The comparison of least square mean microleakage for gutta-
percha versus Resilon indicated canals obturated with Resilon and
Epiphany sealer leaked statistically less than canals obturated with gut-
ta-percha and AH 26 sealer at day 1 (P ⬍ .0014), day 7 (P ⬍ .0002),
day 30 (P ⬍ .0015), and day 90 (P ⬍ .0170).
1448 Wedding et al.
Figure 1. Bar graph of mean linear fluid movement in millimeters for gutta-
percha and Resilon.
Discussion
The results of this study demonstrated a statistically significant
difference in microleakage between Resilon- and gutta-percha–filled
roots at each time interval. There was a trend in microleakage in both
groups with increasing time. The mean fluid movement for both groups
was the least at day 1. Resilon and Epiphany sealer exhibited a statisti-
cally significant increased resistance to fluid movement compared with
gutta-percha and AH 26 sealer (P ⬍ .0014). This resistance might be
due to the immediate setting of the resin-based sealer on light curing.
Day 7 and day 30 of this study also showed statistically less fluid
leakage with Resilon and Epiphany compared with gutta-percha and
AH26. These results are consistent with those of Raina et al. (6), in
which Resilon exhibited a greater difference in flow rate compared with
gutta-percha and AH Plus at day 7 (P ⬍ .001). Sagsen et al. (7) used a
computerized fluid filtration technique tested at day 7 and found Resilon
and Epiphany group leaked statistically less than gutta-percha with ei-
ther AH Plus or Sealapex. This method, first developed by Orucoglu et al.
(8), claims quantitative and reliable measurements of microleakage
and better operator control. Stratton et al. (9) also found significantly
less leakage (P ⬍ .05) with Resilon/Epiphany compared with gutta-
percha/AH Plus sealer. The decreased resistance to leakage and in-
creased sealing properties of these studies might be attributed to the
affinity of the Resilon core to the Epiphany resin-based sealer and canal
walls.
Day 90 of this study examined the long-term sealing property of
Resilon. The timeline of the in vivo bacterial leakage study by Sagsen et
al. (7) is comparable to the day 90 testing of our study. In contrast,
Biggs et al. (10) found no significant differences between gutta-percha
with Roth’s or AH Plus sealers compared with Resilon Epiphany by using
a fluid filtration model for 90 days. Although Resilon exhibited statisti-
cally greater microleakage than gutta-percha at day 90 in this study,
there seems to be a closer similarity in mean microleakage values,
suggesting that both gutta-percha and Resilon have decreased resis-
tance to microleakage at this time period.
Several studies with different leakage models including dye, com-
puterized filtration, and bacterial leakage studies have found no en-
hanced sealing properties of Resilon as compared with other filling
materials (11–13). Perdigao et al. (14) found areas of hybrid layers
with adhesive materials but showed areas of interfacial separation. They
stated that despite the hybridization of resin-filling materials, a tight seal
is difficult to achieve because of the complex anatomy and mechanical
JOE — Volume 33, Number 12, December 2007

challenges, such as polymerization shrinkage and unfavorable C-factor
inside the root canals.
In this study Cavit and the cotton pellet were removed before test-
ing the samples to control possible variables. The deficiency of a coro-
nal seal might contribute to the increased microleakage in both groups
over time. The interim restoration used after endodontic therapy pro-
tects the integrity of the coronal seal before the final restoration is
placed. However, filling materials alone are not impervious to leakage
and are not able to block the progression of bacteria and their by-
products (15–17). Long-term prognosis is dependent on the technical
quality of the root canal filling but as important is providing a permanent
restoration that provides a coronal seal (18, 19).
In conclusion, the results of this study indicated Resilon provides
increased resistance to in vitro fluid microleakage than gutta-percha,
provides a better seal at the apical 5.0 mm of the root canal than
gutta-percha, and might be a suitable replacement for gutta-percha.
Further in vitro and in vivo studies are needed to evaluate the biocom-
patibility and clinical success of Resilon.
References
1. Cohen S, Hargreaves KM, Keiser K. Pathways of the Pulp. 9th ed. St Louis: Mosby,
2006:367–72.
2. Shipper G, Orstravik D, Teixeira FB, Trope M. An evaluation of microbial leakage in
roots filled with a thermoplastic synthetic polymer-based root canal filling material
(Resilon). J Endod 2004;30:342–7.
3. Shipper G, Teixeira FB, Arnold RR, Trope M. Periapical inflammation after coronal
microbial inoculation of dog roots filled with gutta-percha or Resilon. J Endod
2005;31:91– 6.
4. Derkson GD, Pashley DH, Derkson ME. Microleakage measurement of selected re-
storative materials: a new in vitro method. J Prosth Dent 1986;56:435– 40.
JOE — Volume 33, Number 12, December 2007
Basic Research–Technology
5. Wu MK, De Gee AJ, Wesselink PR, Moorer WR. Fluid transport and bacterial pene-
tration along root canal fillings. Int Endod J 1993;26:203– 8.
6. Raina R, Loushine RJ, Weller RN, Pashley DH. Comparison of microleakage of two
obturation materials (abstract). J Endod 2005;31:220.
7. Sagsen B, Er O, Kahraman Y, Orucoglu H. Evaluation of microleakage of roots filled
with different techniques with a computerized fluid filtration technique. J Endod
2006;32:1168 –70.
8. Orucoglu H, Sengun A, Yilmaz N. Apical leakage of resin based root canal sealers with
a new computerized fluid filtration meter. J Endod 2005;31:886 –90.
9. Stratton RK, Apicella MJ, Mines P. A fluid filtration comparison of gutta-percha versus
Resilon: a new soft resin endodontic obturation system. J Endod 2006;32:642–5.
10. Biggs SG, Knowles KI, Ibarrola JL, Pashley DH. An in vitro assessment of the sealing
ability of Resilon/Epiphany using fluid filtration. J Endod 2006;32:759 – 61.
11. Onay EO. Ungor M, Orucoglu H. An in vitro evaluation of the apical sealing ability of
a new resin-based root canal obturation system. J Endod 2006;32:976 – 8.
12. Munoz HR, Saravia-Lemus A, Florian WE, Lainfiesta JF. Microbial leakage of Entero-
cocus faecalis after post space preparation in teeth filled in vivo with RealSeal versus
gutta-percha. J Endod 2007;33:673–5.
13. Baumgartner G, Zehnder M, Paque F. Enterococcus faecalis type strain leakage
through root canals filled with Gutta-Percha/AH plus or Resilon/Epiphany. J Endod
2007;33:45–7.
14. Perdigao J, Lopes MM, Gomes G. Interfacial adaptation of adhesive materials to root
canal dentin. J Endod 2007;33:259 – 63.
15. Khayat A, Lee SJ, Torabinejad M. Human saliva penetration of coronally unsealed
obturated root canals. J Endod 1993;19:458 – 61.
16. Magura ME, Kafrawy AH, Brown CE Jr, Newton CW. Human saliva coronal microleak-
age in obturated root canals: an in vitro study. J Endod 1991;17:324 –31.
17. Torabinejad M, Ung B, Kettering JD. In vitro bacterial penetration of coronally un-
sealed endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 1990;16:566 –9.
18. Ray HA, Trope M. Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the
technical quality of the root filling and the coronal restoration. Int Endod J
1995;28:12.
19. Tronstad L, Asbjornsen K, Doving L, Pedersen I, Eriksen HM. Influence of coronal
restorations on the periapical health of endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent
Traumatol 2000;16:218 –21.
Comparison of Microleakage with a Fluid Filtration Model 1449