Estudo comparativo da adaptação marginal de 2 cimentos endodônticos

Abstract

ObjectiveComparison of marginal adaptation of obturation with single cone technique, using two sealers (AH Plus and Endosequence BC Sealer) and two different gutta‐percha points (Protaper F4 e EndoSequence BC Points). Methods21 single teeth were prepared with Protaper files and filled by single cone technique. Three experimental groups were formed according to the combinations: Protaper F4 e AH Plus (AH); Protaper F4 e EndoSequence BC Sealer (F4ES); EndoSequence BC Points e EndoSequence BC Sealer (ES). The specimens were visualized by SEM and calculating the orders of average size of the gaps and the orders of percentage of gaps in the perimeter. The results were submitted to non‐parametric statistical tests (alpha=0.05). ResultsThe analysis revealed the existence of areas with gaps and areas without gaps, in all of groups. On average, AH sealer generates larger gaps, regardless of thirds. When thirds compared, a significant difference (p<0.05) was found between the cement AH and the ES (p=0.001) and between ES and the F4ES (p=0.009) in the apical third, between AH and the ES (p=0.022) in the middle third, and between F4ES and AH (p=0.009) and between AH and ES (p<0.001) in the coronal third. When we analyzed the percentage of gaps, no significant differences were found in the apical (p=0.775), middle (p=0.144) and coronal third (p=0.158). ConclusionsIn general, the combination of Endosequence BC Sealer and Endosequence BC Points yielded better results.