Percentage of Gutta-percha–filled Areas in Canals Obturated by 3 Different Techniques with and without the Use of Endodontic Sealer

Introduction: This study had 2 purposes: to compare the Microseal, continuous wave, and Thermafil techniques and to compare the same techniques with and without endodontic sealer. Methods: Ninety extracted mandibular premolars were allocated into 6 groups obturated with Microseal (Analytic, Glendora, CA) and sealer (Mseal), Microseal without sealer (Mnoseal), System B (EIE Analytic Technology, Orange, CA) and sealer (SBseal), System B without sealer (SBnoseal), Thermafil (Dentsply, Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK) and sealer (Tseal), and (Tnoseal) Thermafil without sealer (Tnoseal). The teeth were sectioned at 1 and 3 mm from the apex. The total area of each canal segment was measured, and the areas were converted to the percentage of gutta-percha filled areas, sealer -filled areas, and void areas. Data obtained were statistically elaborated using the t test (P <= .01). Results: At 1 mm, SBseal produced a higher VA than Mseal and Tseal. At 3 mm, Tseal produced a lower VA than Mseal and SBseal, whereas Mseal produced a lower VA than SBseal (P > .01). At 1 mm, Tnoseal produced a significantly higher VA than Mnoseal and SBnoseal (P = .001). At 3 mm, Tnoseal produced a higher VA than Mnoseal and SBnoseal (P = .01). Tnoseal produced a significantly higher VA than Tseal both at 1 mm (P = .001) and 3 mm (P = .001). Conclusions: Endodontic space filling is traditionally provided by sealer and gutta-percha. In this study's conditions, gutta-percha alone showed better filling at both 3 mm and 1 mm in the Microseal and System B techniques. Considering the limits of our study, we can affirm that endodontic techniques using sealer could counteract thermoplasticized gutta-percha progression.