Fracture resistance of roots filled with three different obturation techniques

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare in vitro root fracture resistance following root canal filling with AH 26 using lateral condensation, BeeFill, and Thermafil techniques. Study Design: Eighty extracted human mandibular premolars with similar dimensions were selected. In order to standardize the roots, measurements were taken in two separate regions of the teeth—at the cemento-enamel junction and 8 mm apically from the junction—buccolingual as well as mesiodistal for every tooth. Teeth were then randomly divided into five groups (n=16). With the exception of the non-prepared group (Group 1), instrumentation was done in all groups. In group 2, instrumentation but no filling was performed; in group 3, the obturation was done with AH 26 + gutta-percha; in group 4, with AH 26 + BeeFill and in group 5, AH 26 + a Thermafil obturator was used. All the roots were mounted vertically in copper rings and filled with acrylic resin, exposing 8 mm of the coronal part. A universal testing machine was used for the strength test. Results: The results were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA test. The significance between the groups was tested with Temhane’s T2 test. The results indicate that instrumentation of root canals had a significant effect on fracture resistance (p<0.05). In addition, there were no differences between the root canal obturation techniques; furthermore, these techniques did not create a statistically important resistance to vertical fracture (p>0.05). Conclusions: The results suggest that instrumentation of root canals significantly weakens the tooth structure to fracture and the root canal obturation techniques that are used are not able to form reinforcement. Key words:AH 26, obturation technique, vertical fracture.