Author ORCID Identifier

https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1360-2099

Semester

Summer

Date of Graduation

2025

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Type

MS

College

School of Dentistry

Department

Not Listed

Committee Chair

Samuel Dorn

Committee Co-Chair

Steven Whitaker

Committee Member

Steven Whitaker

Committee Member

Constance Wiener

Abstract

Abstract

A COMPARISON OF ENDODONTIC ROOT-END FILLING TECHNIQUES: A MICRO-COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY ANALYSIS

Andrew Marra, D.D.S.

Introduction: Researchers have compared many endodontic root-end filling techniques for porosity, though few have used a micro-computed tomography analysis for comparisons. The purpose of this study was to evaluate total porosity volume of three different bio-ceramics filling materials with two techniques--hand compaction versus hand/ultrasonic compaction at an ultrasonic setting of 5% using Micro-CT Analysis.

Methods: Seventy-two human single canaled extracted teeth were selected for the study. All were subjected to orthograde endodontic treatment followed by root tip resection at 3-mm from the apex with a 90° slice to the long axis of the root. A standard retrograde preparation of 3-mm depth was created with an ultrasonic tip with a setting of 5%. Samples were assigned to six groups (n = 12 per group) according to the filling material and method used: ProRoot® MTA compacted by hand alone; ProRoot® MTA compacted by hand/ultrasonic compaction; Biodentine® compacted by hand alone; Biodentine® compacted by hand/ultrasonic compaction; EndoSequence® BC putty compacted by hand alone; and EndoSequence® BC compacted by hand/ultrasonic compaction. Teeth were scanned with micro-CT to evaluate total porosity volume. A Wilcoxon test was conducted to determine if there was a difference between the groups compacted by hand alone and the hand/ultrasonic compaction group.

Results: The results did not show a significant difference between the total of hand compaction alone versus the hand/ultrasonic compaction (p-value = 0.603). There was no significant difference between each material when comparing hand compaction alone versus hand/ultrasonic compaction. MTA (hand compaction alone versus hand/ultrasonic compactions) yielded a p-value of 0.318, BD (hand compaction alone versus hand/ultrasonic compactions) yielded a p-value of 0.443, and BC (hand compaction alone versus hand/ultrasonic compactions) yielded a p-value of 0.378.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, both hand compaction alone and hand/ultrasonic compaction resulted in similar total porosity volume.

Download

Share

COinS