| Literature DB >> 34674198 |
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the degree of dentinal penetration between an epoxy resin-based sealer applied by using two different filling methods and an ultrasonically activated calcium silicate-based sealer via confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34674198 PMCID: PMC8890920 DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735429
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Dent
Fig. 1Measurements of the maximum sealer penetration depth.
Fig. 2(A-C) Representative confocal laser scanning microscopy images at the 2-mm level and 5-mm level from the apex (×5)
Fig. 3Comparison of maximum sealer penetration depth values among experimental groups (unit = μm). For 2-mm level, median and interquartile ranges are shown. For 5-mm level, mean ± standard errors are shown. At the 2-mm level, there was no statistically significant difference among the groups (Kruskal–Wallis H test). At the 5-mm level, the Endoseal MTA + single cone technique with ultrasonic activation group showed statistically significantly lower values than the AH Plus + continuous wave and AH Plus + single cone technique groups ( p < 0.01, adjusted using Bonferroni method after analysis of variance, denoted as *). Sample numbers in each group were 15.
Fig. 4Comparison of unitless mean fluorescence intensity values among experimental groups. For all levels, median and interquartile ranges are shown. At the 2-mm level, there was no statistically significant difference among groups (Kruskal–Wallis H test). At the 5-mm level, the AHC group showed a statistically significantly higher value than the AHS group ( p = 0.027, adjusted using Bonferroni method after Kruskal–Wallis H test, denoted as *). Sample numbers in each group were 15.
Fig. 5Comparison of unitless sum fluorescence intensity values among experimental groups. For 2-mm level, median and interquartile ranges are shown. For 5-mm level, mean ± standard errors are shown. There was no significant difference among groups at all levels (Kruskal–Wallis H test for 2-mm level and analysis of variance for 5-mm level). Sample numbers in each group were 15.
Distribution of variables at 2-mm and 5-mm levels in each group
| Depth | Group | MFI | SFI | Penetration Depth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abbreviations: AHPC, AH Plus + continuous wave; AHPS, AH Plus + single cone technique; EMS, Endoseal MTA + single cone technique with ultrasonic activation group; MFI, mean fluorescence intensity; SFI, sum fluorescence intensity. | ||||
| 2 mm | AHC | 906 (636–1,317) | 23,467,605,104 (14,485,802,363–29,316,498,831) | 644.8 (203.3–781.9) |
| AHS | 695 (654–739) | 13,037,655,355 (11,581,334,973–31,027,198,735) | 303.2 (146.8–775.6) | |
| EMS | 740 (728–951) | 15,765,907,185 (12,148,750,687–30,631,958,607) | 307.6 (158.6–731.5) | |
| 5 mm | AHC | 840 (690–1,656) | 65,051,196,506 ± 6,566,107,330 | 1,405.6 ± 96.5 |
| AHS | 681 (592–745) | 53,162,244,503 ± 49,16,702,335 | 1,330.7 ± 79.7 | |
| EMS | 704 (643–1,021) | 59,548,225,221 ± 7,347,856,908 | 840 ± 122.8 | |