RESUMEN
We evaluated four root canal sealers to determine their antimicrobial effectiveness against E. faecalis. The direct contact test was used to measure the effectiveness of the study materials and close contact between bacteria on the kinetics of bacterial growth. The agar diffusion test (ADT) was also performed for comparison. Using one-way ANOVA and the F-test, significant differences between the sealers were confirmed. Whereas BioRoot endodontic sealer had an antimicrobial effect statistically similar to the zinc oxide-eugenol control (p=.99), EndoSequence sealer and AH Plus sealer both had a significantly lower antimicrobial effect than the control (p=.0000266 and p=.0000068, respectively).
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of 3 electronic apex locators (EALs) (Root ZX mini [J Morita Corp, Tokyo, Japan], Apex ID [SybronEndo, Glendora, CA], and Propex Pixi [Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland]) to determine the working length. METHODS: Thirty single-rooted human teeth that were scheduled for extraction were selected for the study. Electronic measurements were performed with the 3 EALs. After the teeth had been extracted, a #10 K-file was used to determine the actual working length, which was established at 0.5 mm short of the major foramen. The data were statistically analyzed with analysis of variance (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the experimental groups (P > .05). The mean distance from the actual working length to the file tip was 0.163 ± 0.032 mm when Root ZX mini was used, 0.343 ± 0.032 mm for Propex Pixi , and 0.012 ± 0.008 mm for Apex ID. CONCLUSIONS: Under the in vivo conditions of this study, no statistically significant differences were observed among the 3 EALs.
