A comparison of four gutta-percha filling techniques in simulated C-shaped canals

Aim To compare four gutta‐percha filling techniques in simulated C‐shaped canals based on filling quality at three cross‐sectional levels, filling time and the apical extrusion of gutta‐percha. Methodology Forty resin simulated C‐shaped canals were constructed and filled using one of four techniques: cold lateral compaction (LC), ultrasonic compaction (UC), single cone with injectable gutta‐percha (Obtura II™) (IT) and core‐carrier (Thermafil®) (CC). Cross sections were made at 1 (L1), 3 (L3) and 6 (L6) mm from the canal terminus. Areas of gutta‐percha, sealer and voids in each cross section were measured using an image analysis system. Data were analysed using a univariate general linear model and post hoc test (Dunnett's T3). Data on time taken to fill canals was evaluated using the Bonferroni post hoc test. Results CC had more gutta‐percha and less sealer compared with IT at L1 (P