AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of smear layer and canal instrumentation on leakage in root-filled teeth. METHODOLOGY: Six groups (n = 12) of freshly extracted human canines and premolars with closed apices and single roots were used. Groups A, B, C, and D were instrumented with engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium MCXIM files and Groups E and F were instrumented with conventional stainless steel hand files. Groups A, C, and E were flushed with 3.0 mL of 17.0% REDTA to remove the smear layer prior to obturation. All teeth were flushed with 5.25% NaOCl, then obturated with AH-26 sealer and either the lateral condensation (Groups C-E) or thermomechanical compaction technique (Groups A and B). Copper wire was placed coronally in contact with the gutta-percha in each tooth and, after immersion in 0.9% NaCl solution, a 10 volt dc voltage was connected between each tooth and a stainless steel electrode. The current flow in the circuit was observed for 45 days. One way ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test were used to compare Groups A-F at time intervals of 10, 20, 30 and 45 days and identify statistically significant differences. RESULTS: Significantly less microleakage occurred when the smear layer was removed and when the canals were obturated with thermoplasticized gutta-percha. Canals instrumented with engine-driven NiTi files exhibited less leakage than hand-instrumented canals irrespective of obturation method. CONCLUSIONS: Smear layer removal is beneficial to root canal sealing. Obturation with thermoplasticized gutta-percha provides a superior seal whilst canal instrumentation with engine-driven NiTi files reduces the extent of microleakage in root canals.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of smear layer and canal instrumentation on leakage in root-filled teeth. METHODOLOGY: Six groups (n = 12) of freshly extracted humancanines and premolars with closed apices and single roots were used. Groups A, B, C, and D were instrumented with engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium MCXIM files and Groups E and F were instrumented with conventional stainless steel hand files. Groups A, C, and E were flushed with 3.0 mL of 17.0% REDTA to remove the smear layer prior to obturation. All teeth were flushed with 5.25% NaOCl, then obturated with AH-26 sealer and either the lateral condensation (Groups C-E) or thermomechanical compaction technique (Groups A and B). Copper wire was placed coronally in contact with the gutta-percha in each tooth and, after immersion in 0.9% NaCl solution, a 10 volt dc voltage was connected between each tooth and a stainless steel electrode. The current flow in the circuit was observed for 45 days. One way ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test were used to compare Groups A-F at time intervals of 10, 20, 30 and 45 days and identify statistically significant differences. RESULTS: Significantly less microleakage occurred when the smear layer was removed and when the canals were obturated with thermoplasticized gutta-percha. Canals instrumented with engine-driven NiTi files exhibited less leakage than hand-instrumented canals irrespective of obturation method. CONCLUSIONS: Smear layer removal is beneficial to root canal sealing. Obturation with thermoplasticized gutta-percha provides a superior seal whilst canal instrumentation with engine-driven NiTi files reduces the extent of microleakage in root canals.