AIM: To compare the percentage of filled canal area in mandibular molar roots after using conventional root-canal hand instrumentation or after a noninstrumentation technique (NIT). METHODOLOGY: Forty mandibular molars were used shortly after extraction. The root canals of 20 molars in the manual group were conventionally prepared using hand instruments and then filled with warm vertical compaction of gutta-percha. The 20 teeth in the second group were cleaned and obturated by NIT. In each case, the entire molar, including the crown and the roots, was embedded in an acrylic resin cylinder before NIT. Horizontal sections were cut at 2, 4, 6 and 8 mm from the apex. Images of the sections were taken using a microscope at x40 magnification and a digital camera; the images were scanned as Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) images into a PC. The cross-sectional area of the canal with the filling materials was measured using an image analysis programme. The percentage of filled area was calculated. The difference in the percentage of filled canal area between the two groups was analysed using a Student's t-test. RESULTS: At all levels, 93-100% of the canal area was filled in both groups. No significant difference was found between the manual technique and the NIT technique at any level (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, following the cleaning and filling of root canals using NIT, the percentage of filled root canal was similar to that using warm vertical compaction of gutta-percha after conventional root-canal instrumentation.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the percentage of filled canal area in mandibular molar roots after using conventional root-canal hand instrumentation or after a noninstrumentation technique (NIT). METHODOLOGY: Forty mandibular molars were used shortly after extraction. The root canals of 20 molars in the manual group were conventionally prepared using hand instruments and then filled with warm vertical compaction of gutta-percha. The 20 teeth in the second group were cleaned and obturated by NIT. In each case, the entire molar, including the crown and the roots, was embedded in an acrylic resin cylinder before NIT. Horizontal sections were cut at 2, 4, 6 and 8 mm from the apex. Images of the sections were taken using a microscope at x40 magnification and a digital camera; the images were scanned as Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) images into a PC. The cross-sectional area of the canal with the filling materials was measured using an image analysis programme. The percentage of filled area was calculated. The difference in the percentage of filled canal area between the two groups was analysed using a Student's t-test. RESULTS: At all levels, 93-100% of the canal area was filled in both groups. No significant difference was found between the manual technique and the NIT technique at any level (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, following the cleaning and filling of root canals using NIT, the percentage of filled root canal was similar to that using warm vertical compaction of gutta-percha after conventional root-canal instrumentation.