Mancino Davide, Kharouf Naji, Hemmerlé Joseph, Haïkel Youssef
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Strasbourg University, Strasbourg, France.
UMR-S 1121 Inserm, Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Strasbourg, France.
Eur J Dent. 2019 May;13(2):166-171. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1695661. Epub 2019 Oct 1.
The aim of this study was to assess the filling ability in oval-shaped canals using two different carrier-based filling techniques.
Twenty-four human mandibular premolars with one oval canal were selected. Canals were shaped using WaveOne Gold Primary and ProGlider. Samples were divided into two groups and filled as follows: Thermafil and GuttaCore. The proportions of gutta-percha-filled areas (GPFAs), sealer-filled areas (SFAs), and void areas (VA), at 2 and 5 mm, were analyzed using optical numeric microscope, scanning electron microscope, and energy-dispersive X-ray.
Data were compared by Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks, with statistical significance set at α = 0.05.
At 2 and 5 mm distances from the apex, this study discloses no statistically different filling ability for the two techniques. Concerning each sample treated using both filling systems, the presence of tags was visualized. At working length (WL)-5, and WL-2, the maximum tag penetration depth for the GuttaCore group into the dentinal tubules was, respectively, 96 μm and 48 μm, whereas the values in the thermafil group were 109 μm, and 55 μm, respectively.
Our results clearly show that Thermafil and GuttaCore can fill oval-shaped canals in appropriate way. Furthermore, we can state that the GuttaCore obturator allows to preserve the same filling ability than Thermafil obturator, in view of the fact that there was no difference, in terms of GPFA, SFA, and VA between the two different carrier-based obturation techniques.
本研究旨在评估使用两种不同的基于载体的充填技术对椭圆形根管的充填能力。
选取24颗具有一个椭圆形根管的人下颌前磨牙。使用WaveOne Gold Primary和ProGlider对根管进行预备。样本分为两组并按以下方式充填：Thermafil和GuttaCore。使用光学数字显微镜、扫描电子显微镜和能量色散X射线分析在2mm和5mm处牙胶充填区域（GPFAs）、封闭剂充填区域（SFAs）和空隙区域（VA）的比例。
采用Kruskal-Wallis秩和检验进行数据比较，设定统计学显著性水平α = 0.05。
在距根尖2mm和5mm处，本研究表明两种技术的充填能力在统计学上无差异。对于使用两种充填系统处理的每个样本，均可见标签的存在。在工作长度（WL）-5和WL-2处，GuttaCore组进入牙本质小管的最大标签穿透深度分别为96μm和48μm，而Thermafil组的值分别为109μm和55μm。
我们的结果清楚地表明，Thermafil和GuttaCore能够以适当的方式充填椭圆形根管。此外，鉴于两种不同的基于载体的充填技术在GPFA、SFA和VA方面没有差异，我们可以指出GuttaCore充填器与Thermafil充填器具有相同的充填能力。
