Comparison of Two Root Canal Filling Techniques: Obturation with Guttacore Carrier Based System and Obturation with Guttaflow2 Fluid Gutta-Percha

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
G. Migliau, G. Palaia, Daniele Pergolini, Tommaso Guglielmelli, Roberta Fascetti, A. Sofan, A. Del Vecchio, U. Romeo
{"title":"Comparison of Two Root Canal Filling Techniques: Obturation with Guttacore Carrier Based System and Obturation with Guttaflow2 Fluid Gutta-Percha","authors":"G. Migliau, G. Palaia, Daniele Pergolini, Tommaso Guglielmelli, Roberta Fascetti, A. Sofan, A. Del Vecchio, U. Romeo","doi":"10.3390/dj10040071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The aim of the present study was to compare the quality of the root canal obturation obtained with two different techniques, i.e., thermoplastic gutta-percha introduced through a carrier (GuttaCore) and fluid gutta-percha (GuttaFlow2). Materials and Methods: The study included 40 permanent single-rooted human teeth, divided into two groups and obturated with Guttaflow (group G) and with GuttaCore (group T). The teeth were fixed and transversely sectioned, they were examined by scanning electron microscopy. The dentin–cement–gutta–percha interface and the percentage of voids produced by the two techniques were statistically analyzed. Results: GuttaCore showed a better filling in the apical third of the canal with a percentage of voids equal to 5%. GuttaFlow showed a lower percentage of voids in the middle and coronal thirds of the canal, 1.6% of coronal voids. Statistical analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the percentage of voids in the two groups (GuttaCore and Guttaflow2) in each portion. Conclusions: GuttaFlow2 seems to flow optimally in the middle and coronal third of the canal, with greater difficulty in filling the apical third. Due to the rigidity of the carrier, GuttaCore is able to reach better the most apical portions of the canals, with greater difficulty in creating the three-dimensional seal at the level of the middle third and coronal third.","PeriodicalId":47284,"journal":{"name":"Open Dentistry Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10040071","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: 4

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of the present study was to compare the quality of the root canal obturation obtained with two different techniques, i.e., thermoplastic gutta-percha introduced through a carrier (GuttaCore) and fluid gutta-percha (GuttaFlow2). Materials and Methods: The study included 40 permanent single-rooted human teeth, divided into two groups and obturated with Guttaflow (group G) and with GuttaCore (group T). The teeth were fixed and transversely sectioned, they were examined by scanning electron microscopy. The dentin–cement–gutta–percha interface and the percentage of voids produced by the two techniques were statistically analyzed. Results: GuttaCore showed a better filling in the apical third of the canal with a percentage of voids equal to 5%. GuttaFlow showed a lower percentage of voids in the middle and coronal thirds of the canal, 1.6% of coronal voids. Statistical analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the percentage of voids in the two groups (GuttaCore and Guttaflow2) in each portion. Conclusions: GuttaFlow2 seems to flow optimally in the middle and coronal third of the canal, with greater difficulty in filling the apical third. Due to the rigidity of the carrier, GuttaCore is able to reach better the most apical portions of the canals, with greater difficulty in creating the three-dimensional seal at the level of the middle third and coronal third.
两种根管充填技术的比较:Guttacore载体系统和Guttaflow2液体杜仲胶充填
本研究的目的是比较两种不同技术获得的根管封闭质量,即通过载体引入的热塑性杜仲胶(GuttaCore)和液体杜仲胶(GuttaFlow2)。材料与方法:选取40颗人单根恒牙,分为两组,分别用guttflow (G组)和GuttaCore (T组)封闭,固定后横切面,扫描电镜观察。统计分析两种方法产生的牙本质-骨水泥-胶胶界面和空隙率。结果:GuttaCore在根管顶端三分之一处充填效果较好,空隙率为5%。GuttaFlow显示,在根管的中部和冠状面三分之一的空隙率较低,冠状面空隙率为1.6%。统计分析显示,两组(GuttaCore和Guttaflow2)各部位的空隙率差异有统计学意义。结论:GuttaFlow2在根管中部和冠状三分之一处流动最佳,在根尖三分之一处填充困难较大。由于载体的刚性,GuttaCore能够更好地到达根管的最顶端部分,但在中间三分之一和冠状三分之一的水平上创建三维密封比较困难。
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
Open Dentistry Journal
Open Dentistry Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
×
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