No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study compared the depth and percentage of dentinal tubule penetration for single‐cone (SC) and warm vertical (WV) obturation techniques with two different bioceramic sealers (BC Sealer [BCS], BC Sealer HiFlow [BCSHF]) and an epoxy resin‐based sealer (2Seal easymiX). Fifty canals were filled with BCS, BCSHF or resin‐based sealer (RBS). Teeth in BCS and BCSHF groups were filled with SC or WV techniques, and teeth in the control group (RBS) filled with WV technique only. The roots were sectioned at 3 mm and 6 mm levels from the apex and evaluated with a confocal laser microscope. There was significantly greater depth and percentage of sealer penetration at the 6 mm section compared to 3 mm (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in sealer type or obturation technique at the examined levels (P > 0.05). In conclusion, dentinal tubule penetration was similar comparing BC Sealer, BC Sealer HiFlow and RBS using SC and WV techniques.

Introduction:The purpose of this study was to compare the stress distributions in the teeth treated through minimally invasive access (MIA) designs to those of the teeth treated through traditional straight-line access and their relationship to the final restoration using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA).Materials and Methods:Four FEA models of an extracted mandibular first molar were constructed. An intact model served as the control, whereas the other three were prepared with either an MIA or traditional straight-line access. Simulated composite access fillings with or without a simulated gold crown were applied to the models, followed by application of an occlusal load of 100 N. Von Mises stresses in the teeth were then calculated and analyzed.Results:Stress values within the dentin for baseline, MIA with composite filling, MIA with composite filling and crown, and traditional access with composite filling and crown were 10.14 MPa, 6.98 MPa, 11.79 MPa, and 16.81 MPa, respectively. Higher stress values indicate that the tooth is more prone to fracture.Conclusions:A traditional endodontic access cavity may render a tooth more susceptible to fracture compared with an MIA design.