8 Munksgaard, 1998. Abstract -This study assessed the sealing capacity of two endodontic gutta-percha filling techniques. Thirty-four single-rooted fully developed teeth were endodontically accessed, instrumented and randomly divided into two experimental groups (n=12) and two control groups (~5 ) .In Group A, root canals were obturated using a solid core thermoplastic technique (Densfil), in Group B and Group C (negative control) canals were obturated with laterally condensed gutta-percha, and in Group D (positive control) canals were left unobturated. AH-26 was used as the sealer. Two days later, the teeth were conventionally prepared for testing apical and coronal leakage, immersed in india ink for 5 days and subsequently cleared. The linear coronal and apical extent of dye penetration was measured under a light dissecting microscope. The mean apical leakage for Group A was 1.39 mm, and for Group B 2.76 mm, whereas the mean coronal leakage for Group A was 2.87 mm, and for Group B 4.03 mm. The differences between the groups were not statistically sigdicant (P'0.05).It has been established that endodontic treatment success depends on the root canal being well sealed by the endodontic filling, both apically (1) and coronally (2-6). Currently, there are several endodontic filling techniques available. The most accepted, and the standard with which all other techniques are compared, is lateral condensation of gutta-percha (7). One endodontic filling technique that has gained popularity is the application of thermoplasticized gutta-percha by means of a solid carrier. The sealing capacity of this filling technique has been investigated, however, with conAicting results (8-1 3). The majority of studies have assessed the sealing ability of this technique by testing apical leakage (1 1-13), but the seal at both the coronal and the apical levels has not been investigated.The aim of this in vitro study was to assess the coronal and apical seal provided by thermoplasticized
Introduction: Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl) remains gold standard as a result of its antimicrobial effect and tissue dissolution properties, but it has no effect on inorganic portion of smear layer. Thus the combination of NaOCl and EDTA has been proven to have the perfect ability in removal of both organic and inorganic debris. These irrigants when used with conventional syringe irrigation were unable to penetrate the apical portion of the root canal, so new activation devices have come in the market which claims to be effective in delivering the irrigant to the working length. Objective/Aim: This study evaluated and compared the efficacy of recently introduced irrigation activation devices EndoActivator, Passive ultrasonic irrigation and Laser on removal of smear layer from the apical third of instrumented root canal using Scanning electron microscope. Methods: Forty three single rooted teeth were prepared with the help of protaper files and divided into four groups. Group I: EDTA only, Group II: Endoactivator, Group III: Laser, Group IV: Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI). Three specimens were not treated with any smear layer removal protocol and were immediately sectioned and sent for SEM examination. The remaining 40 samples from 4 groups after treatment with different activation system were also sectioned and sent for SEM examination. The data obtained were statistically analysed using Friedman’s test. Results: All the four groups removed smear layer and the laser showed best smear layer removing capability compared to other groups but was significant only with respect to control and group I (EDTA group without any activation) (p<0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, all the activation systems were able to remove the smear layer from the apical third of the root canal with laser showing the best result followed by Endoactivator and then PUI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.