Push-out bond strength of root fillings made with C-Point and BC sealer versus gutta-percha and AH Plus after the instrumentation of oval canals with the Self-Adjusting File versus WaveOne.

AIM: To compare the push-out bond strength exhibited by root fillings performed with either C-Point and Endosequence® BC sealer™ (BC Sealer) or gutta-percha and AH Plus® after the instrumentation of oval canals with either the Self-Adjusting File (SAF) System or WaveOne (WO) reciprocating file. METHODOLOGY: Eighty extracted premolars were selected and divided randomly into the following four groups (n = 20): group 1, SAF instrumentation and filling using gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer; group 2, SAF instrumentation and C-Point and BC sealer filling; group 3, WO instrumentation and filling using gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer; and group 4, WO instrumentation and filling with C-Point and BC sealer. Sodium hypochlorite (5.25%) and EDTA (17%) were used as irrigants for all groups. After the sealer was set completely, the teeth were prepared for micro push-out assessment using 1.0-mm-thick root slices. Loading was performed with a universal testing machine at a speed of 0.5 mm min(-1) . Two-way anova and Student's t-test for pairwise comparisons were used to compare groups. RESULTS: All specimens filled with C-Point and BC sealer were associated with significantly higher push-out bond strength compared with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer (P < 0.001). The bond strength was higher for the coronal and apical samples of the C-Point/BC sealer/SAF group (6.6 ± 0.3 and 3.2 ± 0.3 MPa) versus those of the gutta-percha/AH Plus/WO group (4.8 ± 0.3 and 1.8 ± 0.3 MPa), by 38% and by 80% in the coronal and apical parts, respectively (P < 0.001, P < 0.0001). Adhesive bond failure was more common in the WaveOne-instrumented group in general and in the buccal and lingual recesses in this group in particular. CONCLUSIONS: In oval canals, the instrument used and the root filling material significantly affected the push-out values of root fillings. The highest value was recorded in oval root canals instrumented with the SAF System and filled with C-Point and BC sealer, whereas the lowest strength was noted in oval canals instrumented with WaveOne and filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer.

Can size 20, .04 taper rotary files reproducibly create a glide path for the self-adjusting file? An ex vivo study in MB canals of mandibular molars.

AIM: To test and compare the effectiveness and safety of two size 20, .04 taper rotary files that were used to create a glide path for the self-adjusting file (SAF) in curved canals of mandibular molars. METHODOLOGY: Forty mandibular molars with curved mesial roots and narrow MB root canals were selected based on a passage of size 15 K-files to WL; size 20 K-files could not reach WL. Only roots with no visible microcracks were included. Two types of size 20 rotary files were used for glide path preparation, the new Pre-SAF size 20, .04 taper file and the ProFile size 20, .04 taper, which served as the reference and control. Both files were used with 3-4 pecking strokes, which brought them to WL. Two parameters were tested whether the glide path allowed manual insertion of a 1.5-mm SAF file to WL and whether the procedure caused microcracks in the root dentine. Paired t-tests were used to compare the groups. RESULTS: Glide path preparation with both files allowed the manual insertion of the SAF file to WL in all 20 root canals, with no difference between the two groups. No cracks were detected after the procedure in any of the roots in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Both types of size 20, .04 taper rotary files were effective for glide path preparation for the SAF file in curved canals. Neither file type caused microcracks in root dentine.