Experimental evaluation reveals differing root canal filling techniques affect dislodgment resistance in teeth with open apex, suggesting implications for clinical practice.
To evaluate the impact of different root canal filling techniques on the push-out resistance to dislodgment of the filling material to dentin, the quality of the filling interface, and root temperature variation in teeth with open apex. Forty-eight human maxillary canines with open apex were divided into 4 experimental groups, according to the technique for root canal filling: Group I - apical barrier with MTA and backfill technique, Group II - apical filling with conventional points and continuous wave technique (4mm/200ºC), Group III - apical filling with low-fusion gutta-percha points and continuous wave technique (4mm/100ºC), Group IV - conventional single cone technique. Temperature changes on the outer surface of the root were measured in thirds during the filling. BS was evaluated using the push-out test. The adhesive interface was examined using scanning electron microscopy. Analysis of variance was used to analyze BS and temperature variation data, while the chi-square test was used to analyze failure type. The fit of the filling material to the dentin wall was evaluated using non-parametric Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests, followed by Dunn's test. The group using the MTA barrier (4.5±3.5) showed higher BS values compared to the conventional points (2.8±1.1), low-fusion points (3.1±2.1), and the single cone technique (2.7±2.3) (p<0.05). In terms of temperature variation, a greater temperature increase was observed in the low-fusion points group (p<0.05). MTA barrier exhibited the highest BS values and adhesive interface quality, while the continuous wave condensation technique, regardless of the type of gutta-percha point used, showed intermediate values compared to the single cone technique.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Costa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: