Comparative Analysis of the Filling Capacity of Simulated Lateral Canals of Two Bioactive Root Canal Sealers Using Warm Gutta-Percha Technique

The aim of this study was to evaluate ex vivo the sealing achieved at simulated lateral canals (SLC) and the quality of filling according to their position in the root canal after using the same filling technique. SLC were created at three levels in 55 teeth and divided into two groups depending on...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied sciences 2021-07, Vol.11 (14), p.6270
Main Authors: Mena-Álvarez, Jesús, Sevrain, Juliette Theophanie, Zorita-García, Mario, Rico-Romano, Cristina
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
bioceramics
Biocompatibility
Biological activity
Cements
Comparative analysis
Continuous radiation
Dentin
Dentistry
Drinking water
Endodontics
extrusion
Mineralization
root canal sealers
Root canals
Sealers
Sealing compounds
simulated lateral canals
Sodium
Teeth
warm obturation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The aim of this study was to evaluate ex vivo the sealing achieved at simulated lateral canals (SLC) and the quality of filling according to their position in the root canal after using the same filling technique. SLC were created at three levels in 55 teeth and divided into two groups depending on the root canal sealer used (1: BioRoot® RCS, 2: GuttaFlow® bioseal). They filled them with the continuous wave technique and submitted to a diaphanization technique. The samples were analyzed using a magnifying lens (20×), pictures were taken, which proceeded to linear measurement with the ImageJ® program and used a filling score system with five grades (0 to 4, 0 and 1 not acceptable, 2 to 4 acceptable); BioRoot® RCS has got a greater proportion than GuttaFlow® bioseal for SLC filled acceptably at 10 mm from the apex (p < 0.05). The highest proportion of SLC filled acceptably was found in the middle third (6 mm) (p < 0.05), followed by the apical third (3 mm) and the coronal third (10 mm). The difference between apical and coronal third could be significant; BioRoot® RCS has been better than GuttaFlow® bioseal for filling SLC in the coronal third of the teeth. Studies on the characteristics of these cements are missing to explain these differences.
ISSN:2076-3417
2076-3417
DOI:10.3390/app11146270