2017
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0114
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: The aim of this study was to compare two irrigation techniques and four devices for endodontic sealer placement into the dentinal tubules. Ninety-nine single-rooted human teeth were instrumented and allocated to either the control (CO) (n=11) or experimental groups according to the irrigation method: syringe and NaveTip needle (NT) (n=44), and EndoActivator (EA) (n=44). These groups were subdivided according to sealer placement into K-File (KF), lentulo spiral (LS), Easy Clean (EC), and EndoActivator (EA) subg… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
14
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
(38 reference statements)
2
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This may be due to the fact that EndoActivator ® did not increase the removal of smear layer as compared with conventional needles [ 40 ]. Conversely, Oliveira et al [ 41 ] found that EndoActivator ® yields higher results than the endodontic needle in terms of the circumferential percentage of sealer penetration. One reason for this may be the fact that, in their study, each irrigant was used for one minute instead of 30 s and was placed into the canal 1 mm short of the working length instead of the 2 mm adopted in our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may be due to the fact that EndoActivator ® did not increase the removal of smear layer as compared with conventional needles [ 40 ]. Conversely, Oliveira et al [ 41 ] found that EndoActivator ® yields higher results than the endodontic needle in terms of the circumferential percentage of sealer penetration. One reason for this may be the fact that, in their study, each irrigant was used for one minute instead of 30 s and was placed into the canal 1 mm short of the working length instead of the 2 mm adopted in our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the study of root filling techniques, CLSM has been mostly used to investigate not only the interfacial quality between filling materials and the surrounding canal walls (Figure 29; Al‐Haddad et al, 2015; Cavenago et al, 2012; De‐Deus et al, 2011; Guimarães et al, 2014; Kebudi Benezra et al, 2018; Marciano et al, 2011; Wiesse et al, 2018; Yadav et al, 2020), but also the deep penetration of sealers into dentinal tubules (Aktemur Turker et al, 2020; Coronas et al, 2020; De‐Deus et al, 2012b, 2017; Jeong et al, 2017; Moon et al, 2010; Oliveira et al, 2017; Ordinola‐Zapata et al, 2009a, 2009b; Patel et al, 2007; Reynolds et al, 2020; Russell et al, 2018; Van Meerbeek et al, 2000; Yilmaz et al, 2020; Figure 30). This technique demands sealers to be labelled with organic fluorescent molecules (such as rhodamine B or fluorescein) to enable sample observation by fluorescence mode under CLSM (Figure 31).…”
Section: Testing Samples For Experimental Studies On Root Canal Fillingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method has been extensively used since the early 1970s mostly to evaluate the adaptation of filling materials to the canal walls (Abramovich & Goldberg, 1976; Balguerie et al, 2011; Coviello et al, 1977; Fromme & Riedel, 1972; Gibby et al, 2011; Lester & Boyde, 1977; Mannocci et al, 1998; Patri et al, 2020; Russell et al, 2018; Sevimay & Dalat, 2003; Torabinejad et al, 1978; Wollard et al, 1976) and to measure the penetration of gutta‐percha and/or sealer into the dentinal tubules (Balguerie et al, 2011; Caceres et al, 2021; Çalt & Serper, 1999; Gutmann, 1993; Hashmi et al, 2019; Kokkas et al, 2004; Kouvas et al, 1998; Mamootil & Messer, 2007; Okşan et al, 1993; Oliveira et al, 2017; Sevimay & Dalat, 2003; Shokouhinejad et al, 2011; Vassiliadis et al, 1994) (Figure 34). Overall, results from these studies revealed that (i) the tubular depth penetration and adaptation of filling materials to the root canal walls appear to be influenced by their physicochemical characteristics, (ii) the presence of smear layer or residual interappointment medication at the root canal walls obstruct the penetration of sealers into the dentinal tubules, (iii) resin‐based sealers usually display deeper and more consistent penetration into the dentinal tubules, and (iv) sealer penetration into the dentinal tubules can be improved by sonic irrigant activation.…”
Section: Testing Samples For Experimental Studies On Root Canal Fillingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This device cleans by (i) agitating the irrigating solution and (ii) during the friction of its blades inside the root canal. This system was shown to e ciently penetrate the irrigating solution into simulated lateral canals and showed good results in smear layer removal, cleanness e cacy, [8, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] reduction of enterococcus faecalis [19] and sealer penetration [20]. However, up to now, no study investigated the e cacy of Easy Clean device in the removal of organic tissue in the internal root resorption cavities.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%