Compatibility of accessory gutta-percha cones used with two types of spreaders

Abstract

This study assessed the apical seal produced in 60 extracted single-rooted human teeth by laterally condensing fine-fine or #25 gutta-percha accessory cones with a D11-T spreader or a #30 finger spreader. The amount of vertical load (1.5 kg) applied to the spreader, the time of spreader contact with the gutta-percha, and the time between spreader withdrawal and insertion of the next accessory cone were rigidly controlled. India ink was used as an indicator of leakage. After clearing the teeth, the extent of ink penetration into the obturated root canal was determined at a magnification of ×15 with a binocular dissecting microscope equipped with a measuring grid. The presence of voids and the degree of fusion of accessory cones to the master cone were subjectively evaluated. The difference in leakage among the four experimental groups was not significant (analysis of variance, p>0.05). Fine-fine accessory cones were used in 9 of 10 teeth demonstrating overextension of guttapercha. Fewer voids and better fusion of the guttapercha were seen in canals obturated with #25 accessory cones condensed with either the D11-T or the #30 finger spreader. This study assessed the apical seal produced in 60 extracted single-rooted human teeth by laterally condensing fine-fine or #25 gutta-percha accessory cones with a D11-T spreader or a #30 finger spreader. The amount of vertical load (1.5 kg) applied to the spreader, the time of spreader contact with the gutta-percha, and the time between spreader withdrawal and insertion of the next accessory cone were rigidly controlled. India ink was used as an indicator of leakage. After clearing the teeth, the extent of ink penetration into the obturated root canal was determined at a magnification of ×15 with a binocular dissecting microscope equipped with a measuring grid. The presence of voids and the degree of fusion of accessory cones to the master cone were subjectively evaluated. The difference in leakage among the four experimental groups was not significant (analysis of variance, p>0.05). Fine-fine accessory cones were used in 9 of 10 teeth demonstrating overextension of guttapercha. Fewer voids and better fusion of the guttapercha were seen in canals obturated with #25 accessory cones condensed with either the D11-T or the #30 finger spreader.