RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the sealing ability of root-end filling materials such as mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), Portland cement, and bioaggregate (BA) after irrigation with different solutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined 130 human maxillar central teeth. After cutting the teeth at the cementoenamel junction, the root canals were expanded using nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Root canals were filled with AH-plus and gutta-percha. Then, the roots were cut apically, and 3 mm deep retrograde cavities were prepared. The roots were divided 12 experimental groups, consisting 10 teeth each; the positive and negative control groups contained five teeth each. The retrograde cavities were rinsed using ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), chlorhexidine (CHX), BioPure(™) mixture of a tetracycline isomer, an acid, and a detergent (MTAD), or distilled water. Next, groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were sealed with MTA; groups 5, 6, 7, and 8 were sealed with Portland cement; and groups 9, 10, 11, and 12 were sealed with BA. Then, apical microleakage was evaluated by using a computerized fluid filtration method. The results of the leakage test were statistically evaluated by the post-hoc Tukey's test. RESULTS: MTA, Portland cement, and BA root-end filling materials showed the least leakage in the CHX and distilled water groups. The highest leakage was observed in the EDTA and MTAD groups. CONCLUSIONS: The sealing ability of BA was as good as that of MTA. EDTA and MTAD increased the apical leakage and CHX and distilled water decreased the leakage of the root-end filling materials examined in this study.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sealing abilities of three different gutta-percha techniques in experimentally defective roots (EDR) and non-defective roots (NR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty canine teeth were divided into six groups of ten; Group 1, NR + cold lateral condensation (CLC); Group 2, EDR + LC; Group 3, NR + BeeFill; Group 4, EDR + BeeFill; Group 5, NR + Thermafil; and Group 6, EDR + Thermafil. Apical leakage was measured using a computerized fluid filtration meter with a laser system. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed that the CLC demonstrated more microleakage in the EDR than in the NR (P < 0.01). Thermafil demonstrated more microleakage in the NR than in the EDR (P < 0.01). No statistically significant differences were found between the BeeFill groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that internal resorptive cavities can affect the apical sealing properties of different root canal filling techniques, with Thermafil ensuring the lowest apical microleakage.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the coronal microleakage intraorifice barrier materials, called CoroSeal (CS), fissur sealant (FS), flowable composite FC, and policarboksilate cement (PC), by using the computerized fluid filtration method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty freshly extracted, single-canal human maxillary central teeth were used in this study. The teeth were decoronated to a standardized root length of 15 mm. After preparation and irrigation, all the teeth were obturated with gutta-percha and AH-Plus. In all teeth, the coronal 2 mm of root filling was removed and replaced with one of the intraorifice barriers. According to intraorifice barriers, teeth were divided randomly into 4 experimental groups (n = 10) and 2 control groups (n = 5). Group 1: CS; Group 2: FS; Group 3: FC; and Group 4: PC. POSITIVE CONTROL GROUP: No barrier material was used. NEGATIVE CONTROL GROUP: Roots were completely coated with the nail polish, including the orifice. Leakage was evaluated by using a computerized fluid filtration model. Differences in fluid filtration among groups were subjected to statistical analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis Test and multiple comparisons test. RESULTS: A value of P < 0.05 was statistically significant. Statistical analysis has indicated that the CS leaked significantly less than other groups (P < 0.05). There was a significant difference between FS and PC (P < 0.05), in contrast there was no significant difference between FS and FC (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Using the CS material as an intraorrifice barrier material reduced amount of microleakage as compared with FS, FC, and PC.