Resumen de Filling of small oval root canals: influence of sealer placement and filling technique

Fernanda Haverroth Schünemann, Soraia Höpfner Canani, Ulrich Lohbauer, Anselm Petschelt, Zvi Metzger, Johannes Ebert

• Objectives: The aim of this study was to carry out a morphometric analysis of small oval root canals filled with GuttaFlow 2 sealer (Coltène/Whaledent) using different methods of sealer placement and different root canal filling techniques.

  Method and materials: Eighty extracted mandibular incisors with small oval root canals were instrumented with the Self-Adjusting File (Redent Nova). GuttaFlow 2 was placed using a lentulo spiral, paper point, master point, or sonically activated CanalBrush (Coltène/Whaledent), followed by the placement of a master point and accessory points (M?P+) (part 1). GuttaFlow 2 was placed using a lentulo spiral without a gutta-percha point, together with a single point, with a chloroform-dipped master point, or the latter with accessory points (ChMP+) (part 2). Serial cuts were made at 1-mm intervals up to 10 mm. The percentages of gutta-percha filled area (PGFA), sealer, voids, and debris were evaluated using interactive image analysis software.

  Results: For part 1 of the study (sealer placement), significant differences regarding PGFA at 2 and 5 mm from the apex were found, whereas for part 2 (filling technique), significant differences were found at all levels besides 2 and 4 mm (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = .05). ChMP+ reached 85% PGFA at 3 mm from the apex, but only 30% near the apex. The MP+ groups showed a relatively equal distribution of PGFA by 60% to 80% at different levels. GuttaFlow 2 without a gutta-percha point exhibited significantly more voids and debris than the other groups (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = .05).

  Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, MP+ could be recommended for clinical use. The presence of voids and debris for the group without a gutta-percha point needs further investigation.