%0 Journal Article
%T Microscopic evaluation of sealer penetration and interfacial adaptation of three different endodontic sealers: An in vitro study.
%A Majumdar TK
%A Mukherjee S
%A Mazumdar P
%J J Conserv Dent
%V 24
%N 5
%D Sep-Oct 2021
%M 35399776
暂无%R 10.4103/jcd.jcd_392_21
%X <B>UNASSIGNED: </B>The dentinal tubular penetration depth and interfacial adaptation of sealer are important factors for successful root canal treatment.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>This study aims to assess and evaluate the sealer penetration depth and interfacial adaptation of AH Plus, Apexit Plus, and GuttaFlow Bioseal sealer to root dentin.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>After decoronating sixty extracted single-rooted premolar teeth, preparation was done using ProTaper Gold rotary files until F3. The samples were randomly divided into three groups (n = 20 each) consistent with the sort of sealer used for obturation. After obturation with lateral compaction technique, half of the samples (n = 10 each) were sectioned transversely for measuring tubular depth penetration under a confocal laser scanning microscope. Longitudinal sections were obtained for the rest half the samples to gauge the difference of sealer using the scanning electron microscope.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc tests.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>GuttaFlow Bioseal has shown a significantly higher depth of sealer penetration and minimum interfacial adaptation than resin-based sealer and calcium hydroxide-based sealer (P < 0.05).<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>At all root regions, the GuttaFlow Bioseal sealer exhibited more sealer penetration and minimum interfacial adaptation whereas the Apexit Plus sealer exhibited less sealer penetration and maximum interfacial adaptation.