Evaluation of Apical Microleakage in Endodontically Treated Teeth Using Three Sealer Materials: An In Vitro Study

IF 0.6 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Biland M. S. Shukri, H. Jasim, M. Gholam
{"title":"Evaluation of Apical Microleakage in Endodontically Treated Teeth Using Three Sealer Materials: An In Vitro Study","authors":"Biland M. S. Shukri, H. Jasim, M. Gholam","doi":"10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_61_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: GuttaFlow Bioseal (Roeko–Coltene/Whaledent, Langenau, Germany), TotalFill Bioceramic (FKG Dentaire SA, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland), and AH Plus root canal sealers (Dentsply, DeTrey, Germany) are used to prevent communication between periapical space and the root canal. This study aims to evaluate the apical microleakage of three endodontic sealers. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five freshly extracted mandibular premolars were prepared and obturated with single-cone gutta-percha, then grouped into three groups according to the sealers used. The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) test. Results: The least mean dye penetration was shown by GuttaFlow Bioseal sealer (1.31 mm), followed by TotalFill Bioceramic sealer (1.57 mm) and AH Plus sealer (2.63 mm); no dye penetration was found in the negative control group. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed statistically significant difference among all experimental groups (P < 0.001); Tukey test shows significant differences between all groups except for a nonsignificant difference between GuttaFlow Bioseal and TotalFill Bioceramic sealer (P = 0.6). Conclusion: All sealers showed varying levels of apical microleakage, with the least penetration in the GuttaFlow Bioseal group.","PeriodicalId":43354,"journal":{"name":"Dental Hypotheses","volume":"13 1","pages":"103 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Hypotheses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_61_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: GuttaFlow Bioseal (Roeko–Coltene/Whaledent, Langenau, Germany), TotalFill Bioceramic (FKG Dentaire SA, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland), and AH Plus root canal sealers (Dentsply, DeTrey, Germany) are used to prevent communication between periapical space and the root canal. This study aims to evaluate the apical microleakage of three endodontic sealers. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five freshly extracted mandibular premolars were prepared and obturated with single-cone gutta-percha, then grouped into three groups according to the sealers used. The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) test. Results: The least mean dye penetration was shown by GuttaFlow Bioseal sealer (1.31 mm), followed by TotalFill Bioceramic sealer (1.57 mm) and AH Plus sealer (2.63 mm); no dye penetration was found in the negative control group. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed statistically significant difference among all experimental groups (P < 0.001); Tukey test shows significant differences between all groups except for a nonsignificant difference between GuttaFlow Bioseal and TotalFill Bioceramic sealer (P = 0.6). Conclusion: All sealers showed varying levels of apical microleakage, with the least penetration in the GuttaFlow Bioseal group.
三种封闭剂材料评价牙髓治疗牙齿根尖微渗漏的体外研究
简介:GuttaFlow Bioseal(Roeko–Coltene/Whaledent,Langenau,德国)、TotalFill Bioceramic(FKG Dentaire SA,La Chaux de Fonds,瑞士)和AH Plus根管封闭剂(Dentsply,DeTrey,德国)用于防止根尖周间隙和根管之间的连通。本研究旨在评估三种根管封闭剂的根尖微渗漏。材料和方法:制备75颗新鲜拔除的下颌前磨牙,用单锥牙胶充填,然后根据所用封闭剂分为三组。使用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)和Tukey诚实显著性差异(HSD)检验对数据进行分析。结果:GuttaFlow Bioseal密封剂显示染料渗透的平均值最小(1.31 mm),然后是TotalFill生物陶瓷密封剂(1.57 mm)和AH Plus密封剂(2.63 mm);阴性对照组未发现染料渗透。单因素方差分析(ANOVA)显示,所有实验组之间差异具有统计学意义(P<0.001);Tukey试验显示,除了GuttaFlow Bioseal和TotalFill Bioceramic密封剂之间的无显著差异外,所有组之间都存在显著差异(P = 0.6)。结论:所有封闭剂都显示出不同程度的根尖微渗漏,其中GuttaFlow Bioseal组的渗透性最小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dental Hypotheses
Dental Hypotheses DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
21 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信