PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9515346

Thermoplasticized gutta percha obturation techniques.

S A Bhatti·R Joshi
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Gutta percha is the most widely used material in root canal obturation because of its relative inertness, lack of toxicity and biocompatibility. The most common method of obturation using gutta percha is lateral condensation, which has several disadvantages. The use of thermoplasticized gutta percha obviates many of the problems of this technique, but is still not commonly used. This article assesses the systems available for obturating root canals using thermoplasticized gutta percha.

Explore related subjects

Gutta-PerchaHumansRoot Canal Filling MaterialsRoot Canal ObturationJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S A Bhatti, R Joshi. Thermoplasticized gutta percha obturation techniques.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9515346/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

A comparison of 5 gutta-percha obturation techniques to replicate canal defects.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of five different methods of compaction of thermoplasticized GP to replicate four artificially-created defects in the canal walls of an extracted tooth. One of the instruments tested was the EndoTwinn which was recently introduced to the U.S. market and can be used in both the warm lateral (WLC) and warm vertical compaction (WVC) techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Four artificially-created defects were created in the dentinal walls of a split-tooth model which could be separated after each obturation and the obturation mass removed for visual evaluation. Twenty obturations were evaluated for each of the following techniques: Group 1, WLC without vibration using the EndoTwinn; Group 2, WLC with heat and vibration using the EndoTwinn; Group 3, WVC using the Elements Obturation System (EOS); Group 4, Injectable GP using the EOS; and Group 5, WVC using the EndoTwinn. Kruskal-Wallis statistic was used to determine statistically significant differences, pairwise comparisons were analyzed with the Mann Whitney statistic and a Bonferonni adjustment was made, where indicated. RESULTS: Nonparametric analyses with appropriate Bonferroni adjustments indicated statistically significant results favoring Groups 2 and 4. CONCLUSIONS: The EndoTwinn, in heat and vibration mode, and the EOS resulted in better replication of the defects than the other techniques.

Gutta-Percha↗
PubMed2006

Variability of the diameter and taper of size #30, 0.04 gutta-percha cones.

The purpose of this investigation was to examine variability of gutta-percha (GP) cone tip diameter (D(0)) and taper among five different brands of #30, 0.04 GP cones (n = 15/brand). Mean percent D(0) difference from the manufacturer's reported (nominal) diameter of Maillefer (-15.42 +/- 7.16%) and Lexicon (-12.76 +/- 4.98%) were significantly different (p < or = 0.05) from Maxima (3.18 +/- 7.06%), Diadent (3.62 +/- 11.37%), and K(3) (7.27 +/- 7.84%), which were not significantly different from each other but exhibited diameters larger than the nominal diameter as indicated by positive values. Mean taper percent difference of Maxima (-3.00 +/- 3.80%) was significantly different (p < or = 0.05) from Lexicon (3.67 +/- 3.64%) and Maillefer (6.67 +/- 3.49%), with comparisons to Diadent (-0.17 +/- 6.37%) and K(3) (1.50 +/- 6.93%) not significantly different (p > 0.05) from each other or any other brand. Based on the evidence, there is significant variability between GP cone brands for both diameter and taper, with Maxima and Diadent, respectively, exhibiting the smallest mean difference from manufacturer's nominal tip diameter and taper. However, the high standard deviation values associated with most of the diameter and taper differences from nominal values also suggest high variability within individual brands.

Gutta-Percha↗