Search

Aim: The present study aimed to compare and evaluate debris and irrigant extrusion from curved root canals using different rotary systems. Materials and Methods: 30 single-rooted mandibular canines were used in this study. The crown was decoronated, working length and initial apical diameter were established. A 1.5% agar gel model was used in this study. Samples were assigned randomly into 3 groups (n = 10 teeth per group). Protaper Next, OneShape, and Hanudent files were used according to the manufacturers' instructions for canal instrumentation. Apically extruded debris and irrigant was were computed by deducting the initial weight of the test apparatus without a tooth from its weight after the biomechanical preparation. Comparative analysis of the amount of apically extruded debris and irrigant for each of the instruments and the experimental models was performed. Results: The statistically significant difference was found between the three experimental groups. (P < .05). Among all the groups least extrusion was observed in the Protaper Next group when used in combination with conventional irrigation. Conclusion: All the instruments produced apically extruded debris and irrigant, but the maximum was seen with OneShape among the experimental groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inadequate obturation techniques of the root canal system have been found to be the most frequent reason of failure post root canal treatment. An ideal endodontic sealer should fulfill all ideal requisites. The present study aimed to compare apical sealing ability between bioceramic (BC) sealer, GuttaFlow, and AH Plus. Methodology: One hundred and twenty-five curved roots of maxillary and mandibular third molar teeth with fully formed apex were collected for this study. The root canals were cleaned and shaped using a standard single-cone preparation to file at the established working length and divided into five groups of 25 each. Dye leakage was carried out. Group A: with GP, using EndoSequence BC sealer with conventional with 4% gutta-percha (Brasseler USA, Savannah, Georgia, USA); Group B: with ceramic coated with 4% gutta-percha (Brasseler USA, Savannah, Georgia, USA); Group C: with GP, using AH Plus sealer (Dentsply, De-Trey Konstanz, Germany) with 4% gutta-percha; Group D: with GuttaFlow bioseal (Roeko-Coltène/Whaledent, Langenau, Germany) with 4% Gutta-percha; and Group E is a negative control group. Statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software and Student's unpaired t-test. Results: The group AH Plus showed more leakage values than the GuttaFlow group and of two groups of BC sealer and negative control. Student's unpaired t-test disclosed no significant difference (P < 0.05) between the groups. Conclusion: None of the sealers used in the study could completely seal the apical foramen to have a fluid-tight seal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]