Comparing Cut-Lengths of Gutta-Percha Cones Cutting at Different Magnifications

Abstract

Abstract Background: Since there are significant differences between instruments and guta-percha cones of the same size, cutting and adapting the guta-percha cone to the desired size is very important for apical sealing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the cut lengths of guta-percha cones cut with a scalpel blade under different magnifications using stereomicroscope-based measurements. Materials and Methods: The tips of the gutta-percha cones were cut 2 mm with the naked eye ve under different magnifications using a scalpel blade and stainless steel endodontic finger ruler. The use magnifications were 2.5x Galilean loupe (Keeler, Windsor, UK), a 7.5x prismatic loupe (Admetec, Haifa, Israel) and a 25x operating microscope (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). Each cut guta-percha tip was imaged under a 40x Zeiss Stemi 305 stereomicroscope using Zeiss Zen Lite 2 software and lengths were measured by two observers. Inter-observer agreements were calculated utilising the weighted kappa coefficient. Data were analyzed by Kruskal Wallis H test at P<0.05 significance level. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between cut-lengths of gutta-percha cones depending on the magnification (p>0.05). Although there was no statistically significant difference, the mean values of the 25x magnification group were lower than the other groups (26,03). Conclusions: Given the limitations of this study, similar guta-percha cut lengths were obtained under the naked eye, 2.5x, 7.5x and 25x magnifications. In order to better evaluate the magnification efficiency, studies with larger sample sizes, along with evaluating the morphological surface, are needed.

Keywords

• : Gutta-percha
• Magnification
• Root canal obturation

References

1. 1. Hammad M, Qualtrough A, Silikas N. Evaluation of root canal obturation: a three-dimensional in vitro study. J Endod. 2009;35(4):541-4.
2. 2. Bhandi S, Mashyakhy M, Abumelha AS, Alkahtany MF, Jamal M, Chohan H, et al. Complete Obturation-Cold Lateral Condensation vs. Thermoplastic Techniques: A Systematic Review of Micro-CT Studies. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(14).
3. 3. Kawashima N, Wadachi R, Suda H, Yeng T, Parashos P. Root canal medicaments. Int Dent J. 2009;59(1):5-11.
4. 4. Whitworth J. Methods of filling root canals: principles and practices. Endodontic topics. 2005;12(1):2-24.
5. 5. Moule AJ, Kellaway R, Clarkson R, Rowell J, Macfarlane R, Lewis D, et al. Variability of master gutta-percha cones. Aust Endod J. 2002;28(1):38-43.
6. 6. Silva-Filho JM, Souza-Gabriel AE, Leoni GB, De-Bem SH, Alfredo E, Silva RG. Comparison of two techniques for selection of master gutta-percha cone using micro-computed tomography. Braz Dent J. 2013;24(4):367-70.
7. 7. Ahluwalia Y, Sharma U, Kumar N, Malik A, Singh A, Narayan A. Adaptation of Single-Cone Gutta-Percha in Curved Canals Prepared and Obturated with Protaper and Heroshaper Systems by Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2019;9(2):185-93.
8. 8. Silva A, Freitas B, Faclao C. Evaluation of gutta-percha points standardization. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS). 2019;18(9):45-7.

9. 9. Barakat R, Almohareb R, Hebbal M, Alaskar G, Alghufaily L, AlFarraj N, Albaz A. Efficiency of Using Different Greater Taper Gutta-Percha Cones in Continuous Warm Vertical Condensation: An Ex Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021;22(1):56-61.
10. 10. Berman, L. H., Hargreaves, K. M. Cohen's Pathways of the Pulp-E-Book: Cohen's Pathways of the Pulp-E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2020;1116-18.
11. 11. Silva EJ, Rocha AC, Ferreira C, Herrera DR, Coutinho-Filho T. Assessment of the tip surface of gutta-percha cones after different cutting methods. Acta Odontológica Latinoamericana. 2011;24(3):236-9.
12. 12. Asgary S, Parirokh M, Eghbal MJ, Ghoddusi J. Scanning electron microscopy study of dental gutta-percha after cutting. Iranian Endodontic Journal. 2006;1(2):57.