Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 1246
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 90-94

Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of marginal adaptation of AH-Plus, GuttaFlow, and RealSeal at apical one-third of root canals – Part II: Core-sealer interface

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. R. Ahmed Dental College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sakshi Jain
Dr. R. Ahmed Dental College and Hospital, 142/A, AJC Bose Road, New Building, 4th Floor, 2D PG, Kolkata - 700 014, West Bengal
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_127_17

Rights and Permissions

Background: Not only the gaps at dentin-sealer interface but also at core-sealer interface may jeopardize the outcome of root canal treatment. Aim: The aim of this in vitro scanning electron microscopic (SEM) study was to determine which root canal sealer among AH-Plus, GuttaFlow, and RealSeal provides a superior marginal adaptation with the core obturating material in the apical third region of root canals. Materials and Methods: Selected 30 human freshly extracted maxillary central incisors were biomechanically prepared, then divided equally into three groups and obturated with AH-Plus, GuttaFlow, and RealSeal using single cone obturation technique. After sectioning longitudinally, apical third of the roots were observed under SEM dentin-sealer-core interface was focused. Marginal adaptation and interfacial gaps at core-sealer interface of all the samples were evaluated and analyzed statistically in this part of the article. Statistical Analysis Used: Analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey's test. Results: Mean average gap was significantly higher (P < 0.05) for AH-Plus (15.65 ± 10.48 μm), when compared to GuttaFlow (3.51 ± 1.81 μm) and RealSeal (6.01 ± 2.51 μm). Between RealSeal and GuttaFlow, the latter showed least marginal gap; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusions: GuttaFlow is better adapted in the apical third of root canals among 3 sealers.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded122    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal