Aim:To compare the effect of three root canal sealer activation techniques on percentage and depth of sealer penetration of MTA Fillapex and AH Plus sealers.Materials and Methods:Sixty teeth prepared till F5 ProTaper size were divided into three equal groups on the basis of sealer activation technique (G1: Ultrasonics, G2: Lentulo spiral, and G3: Counter-clockwise rotary motion). Each group was further divided into two equal subgroups on the basis of type of sealer used: AH Plus (Denstply, Konstanz, Germany) or MTA Fillapex (Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil) and obturated with gutta-percha. Horizontal sections at 3 and 6 mm from the apex were obtained and the percentage and depth of penetration of sealers into dentinal tubules were measured using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Statistical analysis was performed utilizing Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with a significance level of 5%.Results:G1 showed significantly (P < 0.001) high percentage and depth of sealer penetration than G2 and G3 while the difference was insignificant (P > 0.05) between G2 and G3.Conclusion:Percentage and depth of sealer penetration are influenced by the type of sealer used sealer activation technique and by the root canal level. Ultrasonic method of sealer activation and MTA Fillapex showed the best results.

Background:Evaluation of microleakage is important for assessing the success of new restorative materials and methods.Aim and Objectives:Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class II restorations using open vs. closed centripetal build-up techniques with different lining materials.Materials and Methods:Standardized mesi-occlusal (MO) and distoocclusal (DO) Class II tooth preparations were preparedon 53 molars and samples were randomly divided into six experimental groups and one control group for restorations. Group 1: Open-Sandwich technique (OST) with flowable composite at the gingival seat. Group 2: OST with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) at the gingival seat. Group 3: Closed-Sandwich technique (CST) with flowable composite at the pulpal floor and axial wall. Group 4: CST with RMGIC at the pulpal floor and axial wall. Group 5: OST with flowable composite at the pulpal floor, axial wall, and gingival seat. Group 6: OST with RMGIC at the pulpal floor, axial wall, and gingival seat. Group 7: Control — no lining material, centripetal technique only. After restorations and thermocycling, apices were sealed and samples were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye. Sectioning was followed by stereomicroscopic evaluation.Results:Results were analyzed using Post Hoc Bonferroni test (statistics is not a form of tabulation). Cervical scores of control were more than the exprimental groups (P < 0.05). Less microleakage was observed in CST than OST in all experimental groups (P < 0.05). However, insignificant differences were observed among occlusal scores of different groups (P > 0.05).Conclusion:Class II composite restorations with centripetal build-up alone or when placed with CST reduces the cervical microleakage when compared to OST.