The aim of this study was to evaluate tubular dentin sealer penetration, comparing different final irrigation protocols using a conventional needle (CONV), EndoActivator system (EAS), EndoVac system (EVS), and ultrasound… Click to show full abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate tubular dentin sealer penetration, comparing different final irrigation protocols using a conventional needle (CONV), EndoActivator system (EAS), EndoVac system (EVS), and ultrasound (PUI). Initially, fifty‐two first maxillary molars with a single canal in the palatal root, without abrupt curvatures, resorptive processes, or previous endodontic treatment were selected for this study. Then, the crowns were sectioned to obtain palatal roots 15 mm in length. The root canals were prepared with the ProTaper Universal System and irrigated with 5% NaOCl. Afterwards, the specimens were divided into four groups (n. 13), according to the final irrigation protocol: CONV, EAS, EVS, and PUI. After filling, slices at 3 mm and 5 mm from the apex were obtained for analysis by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Two‐way comparisons between the groups and the levels were performed with Games Howell's test (p < .05). Tubular dentin sealer penetration was higher at 5 mm compared with 3 mm from the apex (p < .05). The EAS group showed a higher percentage of tubular dentin sealer penetration, compared with the CONV group, at both levels. At 3 mm, there was no statistically significant difference among EAS, EVS, and PUI; however, these groups showed better performance, compared with the CONV group. At 5 mm, there was no statistically significant difference between the EAS and EVS groups, but both showed higher sealer penetration than the PUI group (p < .05). The EAS and EVS groups achieved better degrees of tubular dentin sealer penetration, compared with the other groups.
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.