Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Sealing Ability of Root-end Filling Materials.|
|Abstract:||BACKGROUND: The aim of this research was to compare the apical sealing ability of different root-end filling materials (SuperEBA(), ProRoot MTA(), thermoplasticized gutta-percha + AH-Plus(), thermoplasticized RealSeal()), by means of microbial indicators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thus, 50 human single-rooted teeth were employed, which were shaped until size 5 0, retro - prepared with ultrasonic tips and assigned to 4 groups, retro-filled with each material or controls. A platform was employed, which was split in two halves: upper chamber-where the microbial suspension containing the biological indicators was introduced (E. faecalis + S. aureus + P. aeruginosa + B. subtilis + C. albicans); and a lower chamber containing the culture medium brain, heart influsion, where 3 mm of the apical region of teeth were kept immersed. Lectures were made daily for 60 days, using the turbidity of the culture medium as indicative of microbial contamination. Statistical analyses were carried out at 5% level of significance. RESULTS: The results showed microbial leakage at least in some specimens in all of the groups. RealSeal() has more microbial leakage, statistically significant, compared to ProRoot() MTA and SuperEBA(). No significant differences were observed when compared ProRoot() MTA and SuperEBA(). The gutta-percha + AH Plus results showed no statistically significant differences when compared with the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: All the tested materials showed microbial leakage. Root-end fillings with Super-EBA or MTA had the lowest bacterial filtration and RealSeal shows highest bacterial filtration.|
|Appears in Collections:||Producción científica UdeG (prueba)|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in RIUdeG are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.