دوره 11، شماره 2 - ( 4-1405 )
جلد 11 شماره 2 صفحات 113-107 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Abbasnejad S, Abbasi F, Araghi S, Tour Savadkouhi S. Marginal Adaptation of GuttaFlow 2, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and AH Plus in the Apical Third of Human Teeth Obturated by the Single-Cone Technique. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2026; 11 (2) :107-113
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-1348-fa.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-1348-fa.html
Marginal Adaptation of GuttaFlow 2, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and AH Plus in the Apical Third of Human Teeth Obturated by the Single-Cone Technique. . 1405; 11 (2) :107-113
چکیده: (5 مشاهده)
Background and Aim: This study compared the marginal adaptation of GuttaFlow 2, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and AH Plus in the apical third of human single-canal teeth obturated by the single-cone technique.
Materials and Methods: This in vitro study evaluated 51 eligible extracted single-canal maxillary incisors. The teeth underwent biomechanical preparation with BioRaCe rotary system to #40/4%, and were then randomly divided into 3 experimental groups (n=17) of GuttaFlow 2, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and AH Plus. The canals were rinsed with 17% EDTA for 1 minute, 5.25% NaOCl for 30 seconds, and 2 mL of distilled water for smear layer removal, and were obturated with the single-cone obturation technique. The roots were then transversely sectioned at 3 and 6 mm from the apex, and the gap at the root filling material-canal wall interface was measured under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (alpha=0.05).
Results: At 3 mm distance from the apex, the mean gap size in the GuttaFlow Bioseal group (12.65±4.919 µm) was significantly larger than that in GuttaFlow (7.7±2.969 µm) and AH Plus (6.89±4.58 µm) groups (P<0.05), but no significant difference was detected at 6 mm from the apex among the three groups (P=0.121).
Conclusion: Under the limitations of this in vitro study, the results indicated that GuttaFlow Bioseal had poorer marginal adaptation than AH Plus and GuttaFlow at 3 mm from the apex; however, marginal adaptation of sealers was not significantly different at 6 mm from the apex.
Materials and Methods: This in vitro study evaluated 51 eligible extracted single-canal maxillary incisors. The teeth underwent biomechanical preparation with BioRaCe rotary system to #40/4%, and were then randomly divided into 3 experimental groups (n=17) of GuttaFlow 2, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and AH Plus. The canals were rinsed with 17% EDTA for 1 minute, 5.25% NaOCl for 30 seconds, and 2 mL of distilled water for smear layer removal, and were obturated with the single-cone obturation technique. The roots were then transversely sectioned at 3 and 6 mm from the apex, and the gap at the root filling material-canal wall interface was measured under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (alpha=0.05).
Results: At 3 mm distance from the apex, the mean gap size in the GuttaFlow Bioseal group (12.65±4.919 µm) was significantly larger than that in GuttaFlow (7.7±2.969 µm) and AH Plus (6.89±4.58 µm) groups (P<0.05), but no significant difference was detected at 6 mm from the apex among the three groups (P=0.121).
Conclusion: Under the limitations of this in vitro study, the results indicated that GuttaFlow Bioseal had poorer marginal adaptation than AH Plus and GuttaFlow at 3 mm from the apex; however, marginal adaptation of sealers was not significantly different at 6 mm from the apex.
نوع مطالعه: Original article |
موضوع مقاله:
Endodontics
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |