Homogeneity and adaptation of endodontic fillings in root canals with enlarged apical preparation

Ashraf ElAyouti, Peter Kiefner, Hanjo Hecker, Ailing Chu, Claus Löst, Roland Weiger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The aim was to compare the homogeneity and adaptation of endodontic fillings placed in root canals with wide apical preparation. Study design: One hundred twenty root canals were prepared under simulated clinical conditions. The range of apical preparation size was 45 (narrow canals) to 60 (wide canals). The canals were filled using 4 techniques: Thermafil, GuttaFlow, apical cone, and vertical compaction. The root canals were sectioned at 5 levels. The adaptation and homogeneity of the filling were evaluated and statistically analyzed. Results: The percentage of canal outline in contact with the filling in the Thermafil group (91.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.8%-93.6%]) was statistically significantly lower than in the other groups. No statistically significant differences were found between GuttaFlow (96.6% [95% CI 95.7%-97.5%]), apical cone (98.6% [95% CI 98.0%-99.3%]), and vertical compaction (98.1% [95% CI 96.5%-99.7%]). Similarly, the percentage of void area in Thermafil group (4.0% [95% CI 2.6%-5.3%]) was statistically significantly higher than in the other groups (GuttaFlow 1.4% [95% CI 0.1%-1.8%], apical cone 1.6% [95% CI 0.7%-2.4%], and vertical compaction 0.1% [95% CI 0.1%-1.8%]). Conclusions: The tested filling techniques/materials provided similar high values for the homogeneity and adaptation to root canal walls after enlarged apical preparation, except for Thermafil at the most apical level.

Original languageEnglish
JournalOral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics
Volume108
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dental Pulp Cavity
Endodontics
Confidence Intervals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Surgery
  • Dentistry(all)
  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Homogeneity and adaptation of endodontic fillings in root canals with enlarged apical preparation. / ElAyouti, Ashraf; Kiefner, Peter; Hecker, Hanjo; Chu, Ailing; Löst, Claus; Weiger, Roland.

In: Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, Vol. 108, No. 3, 09.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

ElAyouti, Ashraf ; Kiefner, Peter ; Hecker, Hanjo ; Chu, Ailing ; Löst, Claus ; Weiger, Roland. / Homogeneity and adaptation of endodontic fillings in root canals with enlarged apical preparation. In: Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics. 2009 ; Vol. 108, No. 3.
@article{519f7832ef8f45e29f03cdb72d3758d7,
title = "Homogeneity and adaptation of endodontic fillings in root canals with enlarged apical preparation",
abstract = "Objective: The aim was to compare the homogeneity and adaptation of endodontic fillings placed in root canals with wide apical preparation. Study design: One hundred twenty root canals were prepared under simulated clinical conditions. The range of apical preparation size was 45 (narrow canals) to 60 (wide canals). The canals were filled using 4 techniques: Thermafil, GuttaFlow, apical cone, and vertical compaction. The root canals were sectioned at 5 levels. The adaptation and homogeneity of the filling were evaluated and statistically analyzed. Results: The percentage of canal outline in contact with the filling in the Thermafil group (91.3{\%} [95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 88.8{\%}-93.6{\%}]) was statistically significantly lower than in the other groups. No statistically significant differences were found between GuttaFlow (96.6{\%} [95{\%} CI 95.7{\%}-97.5{\%}]), apical cone (98.6{\%} [95{\%} CI 98.0{\%}-99.3{\%}]), and vertical compaction (98.1{\%} [95{\%} CI 96.5{\%}-99.7{\%}]). Similarly, the percentage of void area in Thermafil group (4.0{\%} [95{\%} CI 2.6{\%}-5.3{\%}]) was statistically significantly higher than in the other groups (GuttaFlow 1.4{\%} [95{\%} CI 0.1{\%}-1.8{\%}], apical cone 1.6{\%} [95{\%} CI 0.7{\%}-2.4{\%}], and vertical compaction 0.1{\%} [95{\%} CI 0.1{\%}-1.8{\%}]). Conclusions: The tested filling techniques/materials provided similar high values for the homogeneity and adaptation to root canal walls after enlarged apical preparation, except for Thermafil at the most apical level.",
author = "Ashraf ElAyouti and Peter Kiefner and Hanjo Hecker and Ailing Chu and Claus L{\"o}st and Roland Weiger",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.04.022",
language = "English",
volume = "108",
journal = "Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology",
issn = "2212-4403",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Homogeneity and adaptation of endodontic fillings in root canals with enlarged apical preparation

AU - ElAyouti, Ashraf

AU - Kiefner, Peter

AU - Hecker, Hanjo

AU - Chu, Ailing

AU - Löst, Claus

AU - Weiger, Roland

PY - 2009/9

Y1 - 2009/9

N2 - Objective: The aim was to compare the homogeneity and adaptation of endodontic fillings placed in root canals with wide apical preparation. Study design: One hundred twenty root canals were prepared under simulated clinical conditions. The range of apical preparation size was 45 (narrow canals) to 60 (wide canals). The canals were filled using 4 techniques: Thermafil, GuttaFlow, apical cone, and vertical compaction. The root canals were sectioned at 5 levels. The adaptation and homogeneity of the filling were evaluated and statistically analyzed. Results: The percentage of canal outline in contact with the filling in the Thermafil group (91.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.8%-93.6%]) was statistically significantly lower than in the other groups. No statistically significant differences were found between GuttaFlow (96.6% [95% CI 95.7%-97.5%]), apical cone (98.6% [95% CI 98.0%-99.3%]), and vertical compaction (98.1% [95% CI 96.5%-99.7%]). Similarly, the percentage of void area in Thermafil group (4.0% [95% CI 2.6%-5.3%]) was statistically significantly higher than in the other groups (GuttaFlow 1.4% [95% CI 0.1%-1.8%], apical cone 1.6% [95% CI 0.7%-2.4%], and vertical compaction 0.1% [95% CI 0.1%-1.8%]). Conclusions: The tested filling techniques/materials provided similar high values for the homogeneity and adaptation to root canal walls after enlarged apical preparation, except for Thermafil at the most apical level.

AB - Objective: The aim was to compare the homogeneity and adaptation of endodontic fillings placed in root canals with wide apical preparation. Study design: One hundred twenty root canals were prepared under simulated clinical conditions. The range of apical preparation size was 45 (narrow canals) to 60 (wide canals). The canals were filled using 4 techniques: Thermafil, GuttaFlow, apical cone, and vertical compaction. The root canals were sectioned at 5 levels. The adaptation and homogeneity of the filling were evaluated and statistically analyzed. Results: The percentage of canal outline in contact with the filling in the Thermafil group (91.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.8%-93.6%]) was statistically significantly lower than in the other groups. No statistically significant differences were found between GuttaFlow (96.6% [95% CI 95.7%-97.5%]), apical cone (98.6% [95% CI 98.0%-99.3%]), and vertical compaction (98.1% [95% CI 96.5%-99.7%]). Similarly, the percentage of void area in Thermafil group (4.0% [95% CI 2.6%-5.3%]) was statistically significantly higher than in the other groups (GuttaFlow 1.4% [95% CI 0.1%-1.8%], apical cone 1.6% [95% CI 0.7%-2.4%], and vertical compaction 0.1% [95% CI 0.1%-1.8%]). Conclusions: The tested filling techniques/materials provided similar high values for the homogeneity and adaptation to root canal walls after enlarged apical preparation, except for Thermafil at the most apical level.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=69049119080&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=69049119080&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.04.022

DO - 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.04.022

M3 - Article

C2 - 19576806

AN - SCOPUS:69049119080

VL - 108

JO - Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology

JF - Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology

SN - 2212-4403

IS - 3

ER -