Objectives: The aim of the present study was to measure the amount of microleakage after root canal treatment with ProFile® (PF) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and Thermafil®(TH)(Dentsply Maillefer). Methods: Ninety roots with patent apices (size 10), stored in formaline 10% were used. Fifteen roots per group (grp) were instrumented to PF .04 size 25 (grp25), size 35 (grp35), size 45 (grp45), size 60 (grp60), size 90 (grp90) or with hand instruments to ISO 60 (grpH). The roots were filled with AH plus® (Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) and TH size 20 (grp25), size 30 (grp35), size 40 (grp40), size 55 (grp60), size 80 (grp90) or a single gutta percha cone ISO 55. The teeth were coated with nail varnish, 1-2mm of the apex cut off and 3 min centrifuged at 30g within Methylene Blue dye 5%. Linear dye penetration (linpen) and dye penetration area (penar) was measured using a stereo microscope and an interactive image processing software (tiffmes 1.7®). Results: The results were (linpen(mm)(SD)/penar(mm˛)(SD)): grp25 2.7(2.1)/1.3(1.9); grp35 2.3(1.8)/0.6(1.0); grp45 2.1(2.5)/2.3(6.9); grp60 1.2(0.8)/0.1(0.6); grp90 3.1(3.0)/4.6(6.3); grpH 2.5(3.1)/0.7(1.5). Significant differences were only found for penar (Kruskal-Wallis test, p<.05). Pairs of grp25/60 and grp60/90 were significantly different (Mann-Whitney test, p<.05). A significant negative correlation existed between size of PF preparation and penar (Pearson; p<.05). Conclusions: ProFile®/Thermafil® root canal treatments to greater sizes show less microleakage regarding penetration area. No significant differences were found between ProFile®/Thermafil® and hand instrumentation.

Back to the Dental Materials: VIII - Others-Non-metallic Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General Session (March 6-9, 2002)

Top Level Search