English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background: The objective of this micro-computed tomography (micro-CT)-based study was to compare the filling quality of endodontic treatment and endodontic Re-treatment between two sealers with matched obturation techniques: calcium silicate-based sealer (Endoseal TCS) with a single-cone technique (SCT) and resin-based sealer (AH Plus) with a continuous wave technique (CWT). Methods: Forty maxillary premolars were selected and assigned into four groups, according to the obturation methods of the first endodontic treatment and Re-treatment (n = 10). The AP/AP group was first treated with AH Plus/CWT, then re-treated with AH Plus/CWT. The AP/ET group was first treated with AH Plus/CWT, then re-treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT. The ET/AP group was first treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT, then re-treated with AH Plus/CWT, and the ET/ET group was first treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT, then re-treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT. The specimens were scanned using micro-CT at three time points: after the first endodontic treatment, after gutta-percha (GP) cone removal, and after Re-treatment. The void volume of root canal obturation and the volume of the remaining filling materials were calculated. Data were analyzed using Student’s t-tests and ANOVA. Results: The Endoseal TCS groups (ET/AP and ET/ET) showed a lower percentage of voids than the AH plus groups (AP/AP and AP/ET) on the whole canal and the apical third, after first obturation (p   0.05). There was no significant difference in void volume after Re-treatment, regardless of whether the same or different sealers were used for the first treatment and Re-treatment (p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions: Endoseal TCS sealer and AH Plus sealer had a similar Re-treatment efficacy, regardless of which sealer was used in the previous treatment.

Comparison of Obturation Quality between Calcium Silicate-Based Sealers and Resin-Based Sealers for Endodontic Re-treatment