A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Evaluation of epoxy resin sealer after three root canal filling techniques by confocal laser scanning microscopy. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study assessed how well an endodontic sealer penetrates dentin tubules and maintains its perimeter integrity using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).
  • It involved 45 mandibular premolars filled with an epoxy-resin sealer mixed with a dye and categorized into three different filling techniques: single master cone, cold lateral compaction, and Thermafil.
  • Results showed no significant differences in dentin impregnation or sealer perimeter integrity across techniques, but there was a notable difference in the apical sealer areas, with Thermafil showing the smallest area compared to the other methods.

Article Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the penetration of endodontic sealer into the dentin tubules, the integrity of the sealer layer perimeter, and the sealer area at the apical third after different filling techniques by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Forty-five mandibular premolars were mechanically prepared with ProTaper files, until F5 file. Thereafter, they were filled with an epoxy-resin sealer (AH Plus) mixed with Rhodamine B dye (0.1% proportion) and allocated in three groups: Group 1, single master cone; Group 2, cold lateral compaction; and Group 3, Thermafil. For confocal laser scanning microscopy analysis, the specimens were transversely sectioned at 4 mm from the apex. The images at ×10 and ×40 were analyzed by Imagetool 3.0 software. Significant differences were not found among the three experimental groups according the dentin-impregnate area by the sealer (P = 0.68) and between the sealer and root canal perimeter (P = 0.18). However, root canal filling techniques were significantly different when apical sealer areas were compared (P = 0.001). Thermafil group showed smaller sealer areas (8.09%) while cold lateral compaction and gutta-percha master cone showed similar areas (17.37 and 21.18%, respectively). The dentin-impregnated area was not dependent on the root canal filling technique. Single master cone, cold lateral condensation and Thermafil techniques presented integrity of the sealer perimeter close to 100% and Thermafil resulted in a significantly thinner sealer layer.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22061DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

root canal
16
canal filling
12
filling techniques
12
confocal laser
12
laser scanning
12
scanning microscopy
12
master cone
12
cold lateral
12
sealer
11
techniques confocal
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!