A Summary of the Current Research on Resilon
1. “The Evaluation of Microbial Leakage in Roots Filled with a Thermoplastic
Synthetic Polymer-Based Root Canal Filling Material (Resilon).” Shipper et al.,
JOE, Vol. 30(5), May 2004.
Using a bacterial penetration protocol, the researchers found that
Resilon/Epiphany(R/E) was more than 6 times more effective in preventing
leakage to the apex.
2. “Fracture Resistance of Roots Endodontically Treated with a New Resin Filling
Material.” Thompson et al. JADA, Vol. 135, May, 2004.
These researchers found that Resilon/Epiphany increased the fracture resistance
of endodontically treated roots by more than 20%.
3. “Resilon – the missing link in sealing the root canal.” N. Chivian. Compend.
Contin. Educ. Dent., 25(10A), October, 2004.
4. “RealSeal – the real deal.” J.D. Maggio. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 25(10A),
October, 2004.
5. “Dentinal bonding reaches the root canal system.” Teixeira et al., J. Esthet.
Restor. Dent., Vol. 16(6), November 2004.
6. “Periapical Inflammation after Microbial Innoculation of Dog Roots Filled with
Gutta-Percha or Resilon.” Trope et al. JOE, Vol. 31(2), Feb. 2005.
This in vivo study found that after 14 weeks mild inflammation was observed in
82% of the roots with gutta percha and an epoxy resin sealer as compared to only
19% of the roots filled with Resilon/Epiphany.
7. “Interfaces in Soft Resin Obturated Root Canals.” Alongi et al., Louisiana State
University, Health Sciences Center, School of Dentistry, New Orleans, LA.
Abstract: 2005 IADR/AADR/CADR, 83rd General Session and Exhibition. March
2005.
These researchers used scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy
dispersive x-ray analysis to examine circular cross sections of roots filled with
Resilon/Epiphany. The SEM revealed the presence of a continuous layer of
sealant sandwiched between dentin and the soft resin. The thickness of the layer
was non-uniform and varied between 10-70 microns. The dentin-sealant
interface was found to be mostly continuous and gap free. The sealant-soft resin
interface was also found to be seamless.
8. “Bonding of Self-Etching Primer/Polycaprolactone-Based Root Filling Material
to Intraradicular Dentin: F.R. Tay, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Abstract: 2005 IADR/AADR/CADR, 83rd General Session and Exhibition. March
2005.
Using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and environmental scanning
electron microscopy (ESEM) the authors were able to determine via TEM that
there was an excellent coupling between the Epiphany resin cement sealer and
Resilon while silver deposits were found between the AH Plus sealer and guttapercha in the control. A consistent hermetic apical seal in the apical 4 mm of the
root canals was not realized for the gutta-percha control or the Resilon root
filling material.
9. “Bondability of Resilon to a Root Canal Sealant.” W. Jia, Pentron Clinical
Technologies, Inc., Wallingford, CT. Abstract: 2005 IADR/AADR/CADR, 83rd
General Session and Exhibition. March 2005.
This study concluded that Resilon was bondable to the FibreFill resin sealant
while gutta-percha lacked this ability.
10. “Antimicrobial Potential of Epiphany Root Canal Sealant.” Y. Li. Loma Linda
University, Loma Linda, CA. Abstract: 2005 IADR/AADR/CADR, 83rd General
Session and Exhibition. March 2005.
This study investigated the antimicrobial potential of Epiphany Root Canal
Sealant and Primer in S. mutans and E. Faecalis using a standard diffusion test
procedure. The Epiphany Root Canal Sealant and primer and the positive control,
Peridex Oral Rinse, maintained the same inhibitory zone size up to 7 days. As a
result, it was concluded that Epiphany Root Canal Sealant and Primer has
significant antimicrobial effects on S. mutans and E. faecalis.
11. “Characterization of Tubule Penetration Using Resilon: A Soft Resin Obturation
System.” A.E. Williamson. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Abstract: 2005
IADR/AADR/CADR, 83rd General Session and Exhibition. March 2005.
The objective of this study was to determine the extent to which Resilon/Epiphany
penetrated the intracanal dentinal tubules. It concluded that the Resilon
obturating material may be effective in creating a mechanical bond to the canal
wall by penetrating the dentinal tubules. However, the material may only
penetrate the tubules within the coronal region of the canal. A further study
performed on a greater number of teeth and using different condensation
techniques is currently being performed.
12. “A Fluid Filtration Comparison of Gutta-Percha Versus Resilon: A new Soft
Resin Obturation System.” Stratton et al., U.S Army Dental Activity, Fort Bragg,
NC. Abstract: #OR20, JOE, Vol. 31(3), March 2005.
This study compared the sealing ability of gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer
versus Resilon and Epiphany sealer using a fluid filtration device with different
final irrigants (5.25% NaOCl, 0.12 % chlorhexidine and 2% chlorhexidine).
Statistical analysis indicated significantly less leakage (p<0.05) with the Resilon
based system compared to gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer.
13. “Apical Leakage of a New Obturation Technique.” Gambarini and Pongione,
University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome Italy. Abstract: #PR42, JOE, Vol. 31(3),
March 2005.
This study evaluated Resilon and Real Seal sealer used in the Elements
Obturation Unit versus gutta-percha and a ZOE-based sealer using the same
device using a dye leakage study. Results showed a mean dye linear penetration
(mm) of 1.3 for the gutta-percha group and 0.4 for the Resilon group. The Resilon
group displayed significantly less leakage than the gutta-percha group.
14. “Comparison of Microleakage of Two Obturation Materials.” R. Raina et al.,
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA. Abstract: #OR18, JOE, Vol. 31(3),
March 2005.
This study compared the microleakage of R/E to gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer
using a fluid filtration device. Fluid flow rates were measured after root
resections of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 mm. The ANOVA results showed that
there was a significant difference (p<0.001) between the filling materials when
comparing the fluid flow rates of the two groups: Epiphany/Resilon had a lower
(p<0.001) fluid flow rate compared to gutta-percha. There were no significant
differences in the fluid flow rate up to and including 8 mm of root resection. It
was concluded that Epiphany/Resilon seals roots canals as well as gutta-percha
and AH Plus.
15. “Comparison of Lateral and Vertical Condensation techniques Using Resilon: A
Scanning Electron Microscopy Study.” Liu and Williamson, University of Iowa,
Iowa City, IA. Abstract: #PR16, JOE, Vol. 31(3), March 2005.
The purpose of this scanning electron microscopy study was to characterize and
compare the root dentin and the Epiphany soft resin interface in extracted human
anterior teeth obturated by cold lateral and warm vertical condensation
techniques. Scanning electron microscopy determined that the resin penetrated
into tubules consistently to various lengths in the coronal third of roots. Unfilled
tubules in the middle and apical thirds were frequently observed. A hybrid layer
was observed, and its role in providing a seal needs to be investigated.
16. “Clinical Performance of Resilon and Gutta-Percha at 3 and 6 Months.”
Heffernan et al., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Abstract: #PR11,
JOE, Vol. 31(3), March 2005.
This study aimed to determine the clinical performance at 3 and 6 months of
Resilon/Epiphany sealer compared to gutta-percha/Roth’s sealer using a hybrid
System B and Obtura II backfill technique. It was observed that there was no
radiographic loss of material within the main or lateral canals and absorption of
extracanal material was the same for each group. At the 3 month PAI evaluation
there was no significant difference (p<0.05) between the healing of the Resilon or
gutta-percha groups. At these short follow-up periods Resilon performs equal to
gutta-percha as a root filling material.
17. “Cohesive Strength of Resilon and Other Dental Polymers.” Williams et al,
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA. Abstract: #OR 21, JOE, Vol. 31(3),
March 2005.
This study compared the cohesive stress and stiffness of Resilon, gutta-percha,
polycaprolactone and a restorative adhesive to determine if this could reinforce
root dentin. Under the conditions of this study, the stiffness of polycaprolactonebased root canal filling materials is too low to reinforce root canals. NOTE: This
study does not include the use of the Epiphany Primer and Sealer, which
combined with Resilon, demonstrated an increase in fracture resistance of >
20%.
18. “Retreatment of Root Canals Filled with Resilon: A Scanning Electron
Microscopic Evaluation.” M.R. Gomez, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Abstract: #PR7, JOE, Vol. 31(3), March 2005.
The purpose of this in vitro pilot study was to examine root canal walls after
Resilon removal by scanning electron microscopy. The Resilon was removed with
2 different file systems and chloroform and a combination of the 2 file systems
without chloroform. All three techniques effectively removed Resilon. Sealer
remained in canal irregularities in middle and cervical thirds. Monoblock
formation was not observed at any level. Sealer penetration into dentin tubules
was not observed at any level.
19. “Biologic perspectives to support clinical choices in root canal treatment.” J.L.
Gutmann. Aust. Endod. J., Vol. 31(1), April, 2005.
20. “Technology may significantly improve endodontic therapy.” E.S. Duke.
Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent., Vol. 26(6), June 2005.
21. “Ultrastructural evaluation of the apical seal in roots filled with a
polycaprolactone-based root canal filling material.” Tay, et al. The University of
Hong Kong SAR, China, JOE, Vol. 31(7), July, 2005.
Because of the small sample size and lack of complete data, there is no
quantification of the data and therefore no statistical analysis that would serve to
validate the scientific design.
22. ”Geometric factors affecting dentin bonding in root canals: a theoretical modeling
approach.” Tay et al. The University of Hong Kong SAR, China. JOE, Vol. 31(8),
August, 2005.
In this study, the authors make their calculations based, in part, upon a system
that uses a rapid setting bonding agent. The Epiphany sealer cures over a 40 to
45 minute period in the canal. This means that when compared to conventional
light cure or rapid setting bonding agents, the sealer takes up to 200 times longer
to set. This results in a considerable reduction in interfacial stress.
23. ”Susceptibility of a polycaprolactone-based root canal filling material to
degradation. I. Alkaline hydrolysis.” Tat et al. The University of Hong Kong
SAR, China. JOE, Vol. 31(8), August 2005.
In this study, highly caustic sodium ethoxide (20%) was used to demonstrate that
the plasticizer (polycaprolactone) in Resilon is degradable. The selection of this
material to test the solubility or biodegradation of any Resilon component is not
only clinically insignificant, but specifically demonstrates a known mode of
failure for a single component of Resilon and not the Resilon material itself.
24. ”Susceptibility of a polycaprolactone-based root canal filling material to
degradation. II. Gravimetric evaluation of enzymatic hydrolysis.” Tay et al. The
University of Hong Kong SAR, China. JOE, Vol. 31(10), October 2005.
This study deals with the degradation of polycaprolactone in the presence of
lipases and esterases of enzymes. During this study, these agents were used in
concentrations twenty times greater than their clinical occurrence. While using
high concentrations produce fast results, they may not produce clinically relevant
results. It should also be pointed out that the polycaprolactone used in this study
was not encased in sealer as it would be in clinical use.
25. ***”Shear bond strength of Resilon to a methacrylate-based root canal sealer.”
Hiraishi, Tay, et al., The University of Hong Kong SAR, China. IEJ, Vol. 38(10),
October 2005.
26. ”Interfacial strength of Resilon and gutta-percha to intraradicular dentin.” Gesi,
Tay, et al., University of Siena, Italy. JOE, Vol. 31(11), November 2005.
A serious problem with this study is that the authors do not present any of the
experimental data, thereby preventing any quantitative review of their results.
While statistical analysis was apparently employed through their reporting of
mean values, no other statistical results were presented, including such basic data
as standard deviation or tests for statistical relevance.
27. “The Effect of Canal Filling with Gutta-Percha or Resilon on Enterococcus
Faecalis in Bovine Dentinal Tubules.” Hyun et al., Yonsei University, Seoul,
South Korea. Abstract: #R12, IEJ, Vol. 38(12), December 2005.
The aim of this study was to observe the effect of canal filling on survival of E.
faecalis remaining in dentinal tubules and to compare the sealing ability of guttapercha and Resilon. It concluded that the canal sealing ability of both guttapercha and Resilon was not complete since E. faecalis in dentinal tubules
survived after canal filling. Evidence emerged that the resin based sealer and
Resilon would exhibit a better root canal sealing ability over time.
28. “Comparative Study of Sealing Ability of a New Resin-Based Root Canal
Sealer.” Kokorikos et al., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki,
Greece. Abstract: #R29, IEJ, Vol. 38(12), December 2005.
The aim of this study was to compare the sealing ability of three root canal
sealers: Epiphany, Tubliseal and Sealapex. Microleakage was measured using a
fluid transport system after 7 days and 1 month. At 7 days and at 1 month, the
group filled with the Epiphany system leaked less than those filled with Tubliseal
and Sealapex (p< 0.05) In conclusion, Epiphany sealer allowed significantly less
leakage than Tubliseal and Sealapex.
29. “Leakage Analysis of Three Modern Root Filling Materials after 90 Days of
Storage.” Wegerer et al., University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract: #R31, IEJ, Vol. 38(12), December 2005.
This study evaluated the apical seal of root fillings with GuttaFlow, Epiphany and
RelyX Unicem after a storage time of 90 days. Microleakage was evaluated using
a dye penetration test (methylene blue 5%). The results of this study indicated that
Epiphany showed significantly higher leakage values that GuttaFlow and RelyX
Unicem (p <0.05). Unfortunately, the researchers did not use the Epiphany
Primer in this study. Furthermore, the Epiphany sealer is hydrophilic and
absorbs methylene blue dye without the presence of leakage.
30. “Epiphany – Influence of Sealer Placement and Cone taper on Microleakage.”
Roggendorf et al., University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract: #R32, IEJ, Vol. 38(12), December 2005.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of cone taper and placement
technique on Epiphany root canal fillings. Microleakage was evaluated using a
dye penetration test (methylene blue 5%). Under the conditions of this study,
Epiphany showed gross leakage in most groups.
31. “Long Term Evaluation of Coronal Leakage of Root Filled Teeth Using Different
Sealers.” Farmakis et al., University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Abstract: #R35,
IEJ, Vol. 38(12), December 2005.
The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro using a fluid filtration model
coronal leakage along root fillings completed with 4 different root canal sealers
and gutta-percha. This study concluded that when a fluid filtration model was
used for leakage evaluation, RoekoSeal Automix and Epiphany leaked
significantly less (p<0.05) compared to AH-26 and Roth 601 sealers.
32. “Apical Adaptation of Root Fillings Completed Using a Soft Resin Canal Filling
System.” Ungor et al., Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey. Abstract: #R42, IEJ,
Vol. 38(12), December 2005.
This study compared the apical quality of root fillings completed using cold
lateral compaction and a soft resin canal filling system, Epiphany. Epiphany root
canal sealer was used with the gutta-percha and the Resilon groups. Calculation
of the canal area (in per cent) filled by material or sealer was performed by use of
an image processor software (AutoCAD). The new soft resin canal filling system
was similar in terms of the apical adaptation of root filling in comparison with
the conventional cold lateral compaction technique.
33. “Physical Properties of Newly Developed Root Canal Sealers.” A.L. Udeniz and
D. Orstavik. Scandinavian Institute of Dental Materials, Oslo, Norway. Abstract:
#R50, IEJ, Vol. 38(12), December 2005.
The aim of this study was to investigate selected physical properties of 8 root
canal sealers, including Epiphany. It concluded that the endodontic sealers had
satisfactory physical properties according to the ISO standards 6876-1964 and
2001.
34. “Spreader Penetration during Lateral Compaction of Resilon and Gutta-percha.”
Neilsen and Baumgartner. JOE, Vol. 32(1), January, 2006.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare NiTi spreader penetration in
root canals with .02 and .04 taper gutta-percha and Resilon cones. A significant
difference in penetration depth (p<0.01) was found for both taper of the cone and
the material used. The depth of spreader penetration from greatest to least was
.02 Resilon, .02 gutta-percha, .04 Resilon and .04 gutta-percha.
35. “Setting Times of Resilon and Other Sealers in Aerobic and Anaerobic
Environments.” Baumgartner et al., JOE, Vol. 32(2), February 2006.
Eleven sealers, including Resilon sealer, were mixed according to manufacturer’s
instructions. Setting times were determined in both aerobic and anaerobic
environments. Resilon sealer set in 30 minutes in both anaerobic environments.
However, in the presence of air, Resilon took a week to set and when placed in a
phosphate buffered saline solution, an uncured layer remained on the surface.
36. “Bondability of Resilon to Methacrylate-Based Root Canal Sealer.” Haraishi et
al., JOE, Vol. 32(2), February 2006.
This is a similar study to #25 listed above. This time RealSeal sealer was tested by
Dr. Tay et al. with the same conclusions as in #25.
37. “Antimicrobial Efficacy of medicated Root Canal Filling Materials.” Belanger et
al., JOE, Vol. 32(2), February 2006.
The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of
commercially available gutta-percha formulations against common endodontic
pathogens. Resilon did not display antimicrobial properties.
38. “Effectiveness of Hand and Rotary Instrumentation for removing a New Synthetic
Polymer-Based Root Canal Obturation Material (Epiphany) During Retreatment.”
Schirrmeister et al., IEJ, Vol. 39(2), February 2006.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of hand and rotary
instrumentation for removal of vertically compacted Epiphany and gutta-percha
during retreatment. It concluded that vertically compacted Epiphany in
combination with Epiphany Root Canal Sealant was removed more effectively
(p<0.05) than gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer..
39. “A Comparison of Root Canals Filled with Gutta-Percha and Resilon in a Coronal
Leakage Model.” Suhler et al. Wilford Hall U.S.A.F. Medical Center, San
Antonio, TX. Abstract: #OR13, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the sealing ability of guttapercha and Resilon in the apical 5 mm of the root canal, using SimpliFill or
System B downpack. Fluid filtration was used to evaluate the permeability of the
root canal seal at one, two and three weeks. At week one, group 1 (System B with
gutta-percha/AH Plus) had significantly less leakage than groups 2 (System B
with Resilon/Epiphany)(p<0.003). No other significant differences were found
between the experimental groups at one, two or three weeks.
40. “Comparison of the Obturation Density of Resilon Using Cold Lateral
Condensation and Varying Continuous Wave of Condensation Techniques.”
Southern and Jackson. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. Abstract:
#OR27., JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
The purpose of this study was to quantitatively compare the mass of a
thermoplastic synthetic polymer-based root filling material (Resilon) produced
when using different filling techniques. Results indicated that a significantly
greater mass of Resilon was found when using CLC compared to CWC (p<0.05).
41. “Fluid Filtration Study Comparing Gutta-Percha and Resilon in Endodontic
Retreatments.” Goldberg et al., Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Abstract: #OR28, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
The purpose of this study was to compare teeth retreated with gutta-percha vs.
teeth treated with Resilon using the fluid filtration model. This research suggests
that Resilon does not provide a significantly better seal than gutta-percha.
42. “Effect of Various Endodontic Irrigants on the Shear Bond Strength of Epiphany
Sealer to Dentin.” Wachlarowicz et al., U.S. Army Dental Activity, Ft. Gordon,
GA and Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA. Abstract: #OR29, JOE, Vol.
32(3), March 2006.
This study examined if commonly employed endodontic irrigants affect Epiphanydentin bond strengths. Using water or chlorhexidine as an irrigant resulted in
significantly lower bond strengths when compared to NaOCl, NaOCl/EDTA, or
NaOCl/MTAD. EDTA or MTAD did not significantly improve bond strengths
when compared to NaOCl used alone.
43. “Apical Leakage Comparison of Gutta-Percha and Resilon Using Warm Vertical
Condensation and Single Cone Obturation Techniques.” Hanson et al., Keesler
A.F.B., Biloxi, MS and Louisiana State University, New Orleans, LA. Abstract:
#OR30, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
The purpose of this study was to compare apical sealing ability in canals
obturated with either gutta-percha or Resilon using single-cone or warm vertical
condensation techniques using a dye penetration model. The results of this study
indicate that single-cone gutta-percha is as effective at preventing apical leakage
as warm vertical condensation. Resilon, however, requires plastic deformation to
provide an effective apical seal. The inferiority of the single-cone Resilon result
could be traced to the increased volume of the hydrophilic sealer used in this
technique versus the warm vertical condensation technique which uses less.
44. “Retreatment Efficacy of Epiphany and Resilon.” A. Hassanloo, University of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Abstract: #OR31, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
This study assessed the retreatment efficacy of the Epiphany system compared to
gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. The results suggested that retreatment of the
Epiphany system was comparable to gutta-percha and AH Plus in canal
cleanliness, but required more time.
45. “The Effect of Calcium Hydroxide on the Regional Thin-Slice Push-Out Bond
Strengths of the New Resin-Based Root Canal Obturation Systems.” Nallapati et
al. Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. And Medical College of
Georgia, Augusta, GA. Abstract: #OR39, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
The objectives of this in vitro study were to investigate if pretreatment of root
canal dentin with calcium hydroxide effects the regional bond strengths of these
materials. Calcium hydroxide pretreatment had no significant effect on the bond
strengths of any of the groups. Resilon/Epiphany had significantly higher bond
strengths (p<0.001) than GP/AH Plus and that in turn were higher than the
EndoRez group (p,0.05). Highest bond strengths were found in the coronal and
apical thirds. SEM analysis showed the failure in the Epiphany group to be
cohesive and in the AH Plus and EndoRez groups to be adhesive.
46. “Effect of Lipase on the Yield Strength of Thermoplastic Endodontic polymers.”
Oblad et al., U.S. Army Dental Activity, Ft. Gordon, GA and Medical College of
Georgia, Augusta, GA. Abstract: #OR51, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
The purpose of this study was to compare the maximum yield strength of lipaseexposed “I” beams made from polycaprolactone and Resilon as potentially
lipase- sensitive materials and gutta-percha (a lipase-resistant material). Lipase
treatment significantly lowered the yield strength of polycaprolactone (-19%) and
Resilon (-25%)(p<0.05). The clinical relevance of yield strength with an
obturation material is not established in the literature.
47. “A Comparison of Coronal Leakage Using RealSeal Sealer and a Dentin Bonding
Agent.” Fulsaas et al., Keesler A.F.B., Biloxi, MS, and Louisiana State
University, New Orleans, LA. Abstract: #OR53, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
The purpose of this study was to compare coronal microleakage between
Resilon/RealSeal sealer and Resilon/4th generation dentin bonding agent (DBA)
used as a sealer, with and without a 6 mm coronal fill of dual cure composite core
(ParaCore). The results of this study suggest that 1) an improved seal was
obtained using Resilon with a 4th generation DBA rather than manufacturer
recommended RealSeal sealer and 2) ParaCore composite provided a
significantly better seal than other groups tested regardless of obturation
technique. The efficacy of composite to resist leakage has been established in the
literature. Use of a composite and a 4th generation DBA significantly increases
the difficulty of retreatment. The clinical relevance of this study is limited.
48. “Cytotoxicity of Epiphany and Resilon Assessed by the Millipore Filter Test.”
Merdad et al., University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Abstract: #OR56, JOE,
Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
This study assessed the cytotoxicity of the Epiphany system’s components,
compared to the commonly used gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. Conclusions:
The in vitro cytotoxicity of set Epiphany sealer and Resilon was comparable to
that of set AH Plus sealer and gutta-percha. Cytotoxicity of freshly mixed
Epiphany sealer, primer and thinning resin did not exceed that of freshly mixed
AH Plus sealer.
49. “Biocompatibility of Activ GP and Resilon Cones on L929 Cells In Vitro.” Zhu et
al., University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT. Abstract: #OR57, JOE, Vol.
32(3), March 2006.
This study is to evaluate the biocompatibility of Activ GP and Resilon in an in
vitro cell culture system. This study shows that Activ GP has better
biocompatibility than that of .02 taper GP, and comparable to that of .06 taper
GP. Resilon has better biocompatibility than that of .02 taper GP, .06 taper GP
and .06 taper Activ GP.
50. “Treatment Outcome of Teeth Treated with an Evidenced-Based Disinfection
Protocol and Filled with Resilon.” G.J. Debelian. Oslo, Norway. Abstract:
#OR72, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
Vital cases: 66 of 67 (98.5%) cases were free of apical periodontitis. The one
failed case was due to a confirmed root fracture. Nonvital cases: 50 of 53 (94.3%)
showed diminished or no radiographic signs of apical periodontitis. One of the
three failed cases was due to a confirmed root fracture. No case showed evidence
of degradation of the filling material. This study confirms that if an evidencebased protocol is followed in private practice outcomes similar to those published
in University based studies are possible.
51. “Resilon Obturation in a Split-Tooth Model.” Anderson et al., U.S. Army Dental
Activity, Ft. Bragg, NC and U.S. Army Dental Activity, Ft. Gordon, GA.
Abstract: #PR4, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the movement of a new thermoplastic
root canal filling material, Resilon, into depressions created 1, 3 and 5 mm from
the working length of a root canal using the System B heat source at various
depths. 1 mm was filled better than 3 mm. 5 and 7 mm from the depressions
resulted in no reproductions.
52. “One-Year Radiographic Evaluation of Teeth Treated Endodontically With
Resilon Root-Filling.” Conner et al., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
NC. Abstract: #PR7, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
This study compares immediate post-operative (IPO) radiographs with short-term
(one-year) post-treatment, recall (R) radiographs of 100 randomly selected cases
treated with the Resilon system root filling from 17 endodontic practices.
Outcomes were similar to those reported in university-based studies and no
degradation of material could be seen within the root canal.
53. “Regional Bond Strength of Epiphany/Resilon to Intraradicular Dentin.” Hafez et
al., University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Abstract: #PR12, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March
2006.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of root region on the push-out
bond strengths of Epiphany/Resilon root canal filling material. Conclusions: The
bond to the middle intraradicular dentin was significantly stronger than that to
the coronal. Photopolymerizing the material at the orifice did not increase the
bond strength under the conditions of this study. Regardless, the bond strengths
were quite low and may simply represent primarily frictional sliding forces.
54. “A Comparison of Resilon and Gutta-Percha Dissolving Qualities in Endodontic
Solvents.” Kunath et al., U.S. Army Dental Facility, Ft. Bragg, NC and Medical
College of Georgia, Augusta, GA. Abstract: #PR17, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March
2006.
The purpose of this study was to compare Resilon versus gutta-percha with 3
different solvents. The results show that Resilon took significantly less time to
dissolve in chloroform than gutta-percha. Resilon dissolved in halothane here as
the gutta-percha samples did not. Resilon took significantly less time to dissolve
in chloroform than in halothane. Neither Resilon nor gutta-percha dissolved in
eucalyptol oil in the time allotted for this study. The results show that chloroform
and halothane can be used to remove Resilon root canal material.
55. “Clinical Performance of Resilon at 12 Months.” Marcos-Arenal et al., University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Abstract: #PR20, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March
2006.
The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical and radiographic
performance at 12 months of Resilon points/sealer, using controlled disinfection
and a hybrid System B and Obtura backfill technique. Results: 58% of the teeth
had a PAI score of <2 after 12 months. Subjectively, 16/38 (42%) had healed,
17/38 (45%) were healing and 5/38 (13%) were not healing. There were no signs
of degradation or expansion of the material in the root canal. Conclusion: At this
follow-up period Resilon shows no signs of degradation and performs according
to previous university-based outcomes studies.
56. “A Comparison of Thermal Properties Between Gutta-Percha and a Synthetic
Polymer Based Obturating Material (Resilon).” Miner et al., Marquette
University, Milwaukee, WI. Abstract: #PR 22, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
The purpose of this study was to compare the melting point, specific heat capacity
and in vitro heat transfer between gutta-percha (GP) and Resilon. There is no
significant difference (p<0.05) in the melting point, specific heat capacity and
temperature changes beyond 3mm from the heat source between gutta-percha and
Resilon. Within 3mm of the heat source, gutta-percha had a significantly higher
temperature change (p<0.05) compared to Resilon.
57. “Comparison of 5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite, MTAD and 2% Chlorhexidine in
the Rapid Disinfection of Polycaprolactone-Based Root Canal Filling Material.”
Royal et al., University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Abstract: #PR27, JOE, Vol. 32(3),
March 2006.
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effectiveness of 5.25%
sodium hypochlorite, MTAD and 2% chlorhexidine in the rapid disinfection of
polycaprolactone-based (Resilon) pellets. The results indicate that 5.25% sodium
hypochlorite, MTAD and 2% chlorhexidine were all effective in the rapid
disinfection of Resilon and gutta-percha pellets.
58. “Effect of Intracanal Medicament on the Sealing Ability of Root Canals Filled
With Resilon.” Wang et al., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract: #PR29, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the effect of calcium
hydroxide intracanal dressing on the sealing ability of a thermoplastic synthetic
polymer-based root filling (Resilon). Under the conditions of this study, calcium
hydroxide did not adversely effect the seal of the root canal system filled with
Resilon.
59. “Effect of Calcium Hydroxide-Based Medicaments on Epiphany’s Bonding
Strength to Root Canal Dentin.” Barbizam et al., University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, NC. Abstract: #PR34, JOE, Vol. 32(3), March 2006.
The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the bond strength of Epiphany
sealer to dentin after irrigation with different solutions and two Ca(OH02
dressings. Conclusion: Although the bond strengths remained high for all groups
the use of calcium hydroxide decreased the bond strength of the sealer to dentin.
60. “Comparison of the sealing of Resilon, ProRoot MTA and Super-EBA as Root
End Filling Materials: A Bacterial Leakage Study.” Glickman et al., JOE, Vol.
32(4), April 2006.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the root-end sealing of the
Resilon/Epiphany system (RES) to Pro Root MTA and Super-EBA using a
bacterial leakage system. Based on x2 analysis (p<0.05), RES and MTA leaked
significantly less than Super-EBA. There was no statistical difference between
RES and MTA. RES may be a viable option as a root-end filling material with
good surgical isolation.
61. ***”A comparison of Cohesive strength and stiffness of Resilon and guttapercha.” Williams, Tay et al., Medical College of Georgia. JOE, Vol. 32(6), June
2006.
62. ***”Initial In Vitro Biological Response to Contemporary Endodontic Sealers.”
Bouillaguet, Tay et al., University of Geneva, Switzerland. JOE, Vol. 32(10), Oct.
2006.
63. “Evaluation of Microleakage of Roots Filled With Different techniques With a
Computerized Fluid Filtration Technique.” Sagsen et al., University of Erciyes,
Kayseri, Turkey. JOE, Vol. 32(12), Dec. 2006.
The authors found that Epiphany/Resilon leaked significantly less in a
computerized fluid filtration technique than AH Plus with gutta-percha and
Sealapex with gutta-percha.
64. “Cytotoxicity of Epiphany and Resilon with a root model.” Susini et al. Universite
de la Mediterranee, Marseille, France. IEJ, Vol. 39(12), Dec. 2006.
The authors found that the cytotoxicity of Resilon and Epiphany, due mainly to
Epiphany, decreased after 2 days to reach a level comparable with commonly
used root canal sealers.
65. “Leakage along apical root fillings with and without smear layer using two
different leakage models: a two-month longitudinal ex vivo study.” Shemesh et
al., Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. IEJ, Vol. 39(12), Dec. 2006.
Under the conditions of this study, the glucose penetration model was more
sensitive in detecting leakage along root fillings. Removing the smear layer before
filling did not improve the sealing of the apical 4 mm of filling. Resilon allowed
more glucose penetration but the same amount of fluid transport as gutta-percha
root fillings.
(It should be noted that the standard deviation numbers were larger than the
means in the glucose leakage data. The average fluid transport of
Resilon/Epiphany was 0 at both 1 and 8 weeks.)
66. “The penetration of Real Seal primer and Tubliseal into root canal dentinal
tubules: a confocal microscopic study.” Patel et al., Kings College, London,
England. IEJ, Vol. 40(1), Jan. 2007.
The authors found that the penetration depth of Real Sealinto the root dentinal
tubules is significantly greater than that of Tubliseal.
67. “Resistance to fracture of roots filled with three different techniques.” Sagsen et
al., University of Erciyes, Kayseri, Turkey. IEJ, Vol. 40(1), Jan. 2007.
All the materials used in the present study (including Epiphany/Resilon)
reinforced the prepared root canals.
68. “Enterococcus Faecalis Type Strain Leakage Through Root Canals Filled with
Gutta-Percha/AH Plus or Resilon/Epiphany.” Paque et al., University of Zurich,
Switzerland. JOE, Vol. 33(1), Jan. 2007.
It was concluded that within the limitations of this study, there was no apparent
advantage of Using Resilon/Epiphany over gutta-percha/AH Plus.
69. “Comparison of 5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite, MTAD, and 2% Chlorhexidine in
Rapid Disinfection of Polycaprolactone-Based Root Canal Filling Material.”
Williamson et al., University of Iowa. JOE, Vol. 33(1), Jan. 2007.
Results indicate that 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, MTAD, and 2% chlorhexidine
were all effective in the rapid disinfection of Resilon and gutta-percha pellets, and
a 1-minute immersion was sufficient to disinfect.
70. “Short-Term Cytotoxicity Assessment of Components of the Epiphany ResinPercha Obturating System by Indirect and Direct Contact Millipore Filter
Assays.” Friedman et al., University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. JOE, Vol.
33(1), Jan. 2007.
Cytotoxicity of freshly mixed Epiphany sealer, primer, and thinning resin did not
exceed that of freshly mixed AH-Plus.
71. “Push-Out Bond Strength of a New Endodontic Obturation System
(Resilon/Epiphany).” Sly et al., Indiana University. JOE, Vol. 33(2), Feb. 2007.
Based on the conditions of this study, these researchers found that gutta-percha
had significantly higher push-out bond strength than Epiphany.
72. “Effect of Endodontic Irrigants on the Shear Bond Strength of Epiphany Sealer to
Dentin.” Joyce et al., U.S. Army Endodontic Residency program, Fort Gordon,
Georgia. JOE, Vol. 33(2), Feb. 2007.
This study examined the effects of commonly employed endodontic irrigants on
Epiphany-dentin bond strengths. Neither EDTA nor MTAD significantly improved
Epiphany-dentin bond strengths when compared to NaOCL used alone.
73. “Radiopacity Evaluation of New Root Canal Filling Materials by Digitalization of
Images.” Tanomaru-Filho et al., Sao Paulo State University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
JOE, Vol. 33(3), March 2007.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of five root canal filling
materials (AH Plus, Intrafill, Roeko Seal, Epiphany and EndoRez). AH Plus and
Epiphany were the most radiopaque materials. All materials had values that were
above the minimum standards of the ISO.
74. “Interfacial Adaptation of Adhesive Materials to Root Canal Dentin.” Lopes et al.,
University of Minnesota. JOE, Vol. 33(3), March 2007.
The authors found that the three adhesive materials (Real Seal, AdheSE and
Excite ) formed a dentin hybrid layer, which nonetheless resulted in interfacial
separation. Gaps were more frequent for gutta-percha, which did not hybridize
dentin. Despite the hybridization, a tight seal of the root canal is difficult to
achieve because of the complexity and the mechanical challenge of the substrate.
75. “Comparison of Apical leakage between Canals Filled with Gutta-Percha/AHPlus and the Resilon/Epiphany System, When Submitted to Two Filling
Techniques.” Verissimo et al., Federal University of Ceara, Fortaleza/Ce, Brazil.
JOE, Vol. 33(3), March 2007.
With respect to the presence of leakage, there was no difference between the
filling techniques, but there was a statistically significant difference when Resilon
was compared with gutta-percha, which leaked more than Resilon.
76. ***”Monoblocks in Root Canals: A Hypothetical or a Tangible Goal.” Franklin
R. Tay and David H. Pashley, Medical College of Georgia. JOE, Vol. 33(4), April
2007.
77. “Fracture Resistance of Simulated Immature Teeth Filled with Resilon, GuttaPercha, or Composite.” Kirkpatrick et al., Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland
AFB, Texas. JOE, Vol. 33(4), April 2007.
The hybrid composite resin (BisFil II) was the only material significantly more
fracture resistant than positive controls.
78. “Cytotoxicity of new resin-, calcium hydroxide- and silicone-based root canal
sealers on fibroblasts derived from human gingival and L929 cell lines.” Eldeniz
et al., Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey. IEJ, Vol. 40 (5) May 2007.
The new RC sealer and Guttaflow sealers were less cytotoxic than the other three
new sealers tested (Epiphany, EndoREZ and Acroseal). Toxicities were generally
of a magnitude similar to that of established types of root canal sealers.
79. “A Comparison of Gutta-Percha and Resilon in the Obturation of Lateral Grooves
and Depressions.” Karr et al., Oregon Health and Science University. JOE, Vol.
33(6), June 2007.
Gutta-percha and Resilon showed similar movement into lateral grooves and
dentin depressions, with a significant difference found only with the increased
flow of gutta-percha into depressions at the 1-mm level when the System B
plugger was placed 3 mm or 4 mm from working length.
80. “Effect of New Obturating materials on Vertical Root Fracture Resistance of
Endodontically Treated Teeth.” Hammad et al., The University of Manchester,
Manchester, United Kingdom. JOE, Vol. 33(6), June 2007.
It was concluded that obturation of roots with resin-based obturation materials
(Resilon and EndoRez) increased the fracture resistance of root canal filled teeth
to vertical root fracture.
81. “Microbial Leakage of Enterococcus Faecalis After Post Space Preparation in
Teeth Filled In Vivo With Real Seal Versus Gutta-Percha.” Munoz et al.,
Universidad San Carlos de Guatemala, Ciudad Universitaria, Guatemala. JOE,
Vol. 33(6), June 2007.
Under the conditions of this study, there is no statistically significant difference in
the microleakage of teeth filled with Real Seal compared with gutta-percha when
the post space is prepared.
82. “Radiopacity of root filling materials using digital radiography.” Carvalho-Junior
et al., State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil. IEJ, Vol. 40(7), July
2007.
The decreasing values of radiopacity of the studied materials, expressed in
millimeters of aluminium equivalent, were : Resilon (13.0), AH Plus (11.2), guttapercha (9.8), Epiphany (8.0) Endofill (6.9) and EndoREZ (6.6).
83. “An In Vitro Comparison of Bond Strength of Vaious Obturation Materials to
Root Canal Dentin Using a Push-Out Test Design.” Fisher et al., Marquette
University. JOE, Vol. 33(7), July 2007.
Gutta-percha showed a greater bond strength compared with all other groups.
Also, gutta-percha and Kerr EWT and Activ GP had significantly higher bond
strengths compared with Resilon and EndoRez.
84. “Influence of Different Root Canal-Filling Materials on the Mechanical Properties
of Root Canal Dentin.” Plotino et al., Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome,
Italy. JOE, Vol. 33(7), July 2007.
Within the limits of this study, it may be concluded that the currently available
endodontic-filling materials and their recommended adhesive procedures are not
able to influence the mechanical properties of root canal dentin and that the
flexural properties of Resilon and gutta-percha are too low to reinforce roots.
85. “Retreatment efficacy of the Epiphany soft resin obturation system.” Friedman et
al., University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. IEJ, Vol. 40(8), Aug. 2007.
The Epiphany system was retreatable with and without chloroform, with lesser
efficacy than gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer.
86. “Evaluation of the Quality of the Apical Seal in Resilon/Epiphany and GuttaPercha/AH Plus-filled Root Canals by Using a Fluid Filtration Approach. Pashley,
Tay et al., Medical College of Georgia. JOE, Vol. 33(8), Aug. 2007.
It is concluded Resilon/Epiphany sealed 17-mm root canals as well as guttapercha and AH Plus sealer and that it does not create a monoblock root filling
that does not leak.
87. Residual Effects and Surface Alterations in Disinfected Gutta-Percha and Resilon
Cones.” Gomes et al., State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil. JOE, Vol.
33(8), Aug. 2007.
Based on the results, it was concluded that Resilon cones exposed to CHX for 10,
20 and 30 min. demonstrated residual antibacterial action and that substances
did not cause alterations to the cones’ surface.
88. “Susceptibility of a Polycaprolactone-based Root Canal-Filling Material to
Degradation. III. Turbidimetric Evaluation of Enzymatic Hydrolysis.” Tay et al.,
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. JOE, Vol. 33(8), Aug.
2007.
For both enzymes, the rates of hydrolysis for Resilon were much faster than those
of polycaprolactone at 1x or even 4x enzyme concentration.
89. “A Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope Investigation of the Epiphany
Obturation System.” Goodell et al., Naval Postgraduate Dental School, Bethesda,
Maryland. JOE, Vol. 33(8), Aug. 2007.
One-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests showed significantly less percentage of
sealer penetration in apical dentin sections than middle or coronal sections.
90. “Water Sorption and Solubility of Methacrylate Resin-based Root Canal Sealers.”
Pashley, Tay, et al., Medical College of Georgia. JOE, Vol. 33(8), Aug. 2007.
American Dental Association specifications require <3% solubility for
endodontic sealers. Only Ketac-Endo, AH Plus and GuttaFlow met that criterion.
91. “Filling of artificial lateral canals and microleakage and flow of five endodontic
sealers.” Almeida et al., State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil. IEJ,
Vol. 40(9), Sept. 2007.
All the sealers flowed into the 0.1 mm artificial lateral canals. AH Plus,
Epiphany, and Sealapex allowed less linear leakage than Pulp Canal Sealer
(EWT).
92. “Apical sealing ability of Resilon/Epiphany versus gutta-percha/AH Plus:
immediate and 16 months leakage.” F. Paque and G. Sirtes, University of Zurich,
Zurich, Switzerland. IEJ, Vol. 40(9), Sept. 2007.
Initially, Resilon/epiphany root fillings prevented fluid movement to the same
degree as gutta-percha/AH Plus counterparts, but showed more fluid movement
when tested at 16 months.
The authors placed the sealer – lightly- on the master cone only and not the
length of the canal as directed in our instructions.
93. “Alternative Adhesive Strategies to Optimize Bonding to Radicular Dentin.”
Bouillaguet, Tay et al., University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. JOE, Vol.
33(10), Oct. 2007.
Push-out strengths of EndoREZ and Epiphany to radicular dentin were less than
5 megapascals. Bonding acrylic core material with SE Bond generated strengths
of 18 megapascals.
Pending Publication:
 “Resin-Based Sealing of Root Canals in Endodontic Therapy.” Von Fraunhoffer
et al., Journal of the Academy of General Dentistry. (Date to be determined.)
 “Sealing properties of Four Root-End Filling Sealers.” Bouillaguet et al.,
University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Abstract: #1444
IADR/AADR/CADR.


“Radioisotope Microleakage of a Resin Root Canal Sealer in vitro.” Aboushara et
al., Tufts University, Boston, MA. Abstract: #322 IADR/AADR/CADR.
“Bond Strength of Different Endodontic Sealers to Dentin: Push Out Test.”
Barbizam et al., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Abstract: #1451,
IADR/AADR/CADR.