In vitro evaluation of four methods of sealer placement

Wiemann, Alfred H.; Wilcox, Lisa R.

doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(07)80134-8

Cited by 34 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7,8,9 Endodontic sealer penetration has been analyzed by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), which enables the visualization of deep structures of the optical sections, 10 and the application of fluorescent dyes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of different final irrigation techniques and placement of endodontic sealer into dentinal tubules

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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) subgroups. Moreover, the distances of 5 mm and 2 mm from the apex were analyzed. The teeth were obturated with AH Plus and GuttaCore X3. Analyses were performed by scanning electron microscopy associated to cathodoluminescence. The percentage and maximum depth of sealer penetration were measured. Data were evaluated by three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Games-Howell test (p<0.05). EA was superior to NT in percentage of sealer penetration. EC was significantly superior to EA (subgroup) for sealer penetration, and both improved the percentage of sealer penetration when compared to LS. Better sealer penetration was observed at the distance of 5 mm from the apex. Sealer penetration into the dentinal tubules was significantly improved by sonic irrigant activation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of different final irrigation techniques and placement of endodontic sealer into dentinal tubules

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[151][152][153] Ezzie and co-workers 137 found that Resilon left less residual debris in the apical third of the root canal; this may be due to the fact that effective removal of the smear layer and subsequent bonding is difficult to achieve in this area. 154,155 The vast majority of studies have compared Resilon/Epihany to guttapercha and epoxy resin cement, however, this may prevent accurate extrapolation to other gutta-percha sealers as epoxy resins are associated with a higher level of residual debris than other cements. 156 Chloroform has been recommended by the manufacturers as an aid in removal of Resilon (RealSeal/Epiphany instructions, SybronEndo 2010).…”

Section: Bacteriocidal/sterilementioning

confidence: 99%

Root canal filling using Resilon: a review

Shanahan

Duncan

2011

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Each technique may give different results regarding distribution of the sealer onto the canal walls, which may affect the sealing. 3 At present, there is no evidence to suggest that one method is better and reliable than the other. Hence, the purpose of this review was to evaluate different commonly used methods of sealer placement on the sealing ability of the sealer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 It was theorized that the properties of ultrasonics may result in a more thorough coverage of dentinal walls by sealers. It was also reported that 1,2 Reader, 3,6 Assistant Professor, 4 Consultant, 5 Senior Lecturer 1,6 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bharti Vidyapeeth Deemed University Dental College and Hospital Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%