Materials and Methods: A total of 45 standardized gutta-percha cone size 25 were used in this study. The gutta-percha cones were divided into three groups of 15 samples each according to the cutting methods. In group I- scissor, Group II- Scalpel blade against glass slab, Group III- Tipsnip were used to cut off the segments. After cutting, the tip surface is examined under stereomicroscope for topographic deformity.

Results: According to the results, significant deformities in the topographic surface of gutta-percha standardized cones were found with scissor and sharp surgical blade whereas Tipsnip allowed the formation of smooth gutta-percha cone surface.

Conclusions: Results of this study recommended that the Tipsnips were the best method to cut gutta-percha cones efficiently than scalpel blade and scissor.

Keywords: Gutta-Percha; Clipped; Cones; Root Canal; Filling Materials; Tip Surface

References

1. S Alex J Moule., et al. “Variability of Master Gutta-percha Cones”. Australian Endodontic Journal 1 (2002): 38-43.
2. Ingle l., et al. “A standardised endodontic technique”. Oral Surgery 89 (1995): 1-3.
3. Helio P., et al. “Scanning Electron Microscopic Investigation of the Surface of Gutta-percha Cones after Cutting”. Journal of Endodontics7 (2000): 418-420.
4. Gutmann JL and Witherspoon DE. “Obturation of the cleaned and shaped root canal system. In: Cohen S, Bums RC, editors. Pathways of the pulp”. 8^th St Louis: Mosby (2002): 293-364.
5. Saeed Asgary., et al. “Scanning Electron Microscopy Study of Dental Gutta-Percha after Cutting”. International Endodontic Journal 2 (2006): 57-59.
6. Walton RE and Johnson WT. “Obturation. In: Walton RE, Torabinejad M, editors. Principles and practice of endodontics, 3^rd Edition”. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co (2002).
7. , et al. “An evaluation of standardised gutta-percha points. Part I. Reliability and validity of standardisation”. Oral Surgery 31.2 (1971): 250-257.
8. Ingle John I. “The Need for Uniformity of Endodontio Instruments, Equipment and Filling Materials”. In Grossman, L. I. (editor): Transactions of the Second International Conference on Endodontics, Philadelphk 1QRR. TJ'nionrnitv of Pennnvloa.nia. nn. 72.1 148.
9. Kerekes K., et al. “Evaluation of standardized root canal instruments and obturating points”. Journal of Endodontics 5 (1979): 145-150.
10. Moule AJ., et al. “Variability of master gutta-percha cones”. Australian Endodontic Journal 28 (2002): 38-43.
11. Araújo Filho WR., et al. “Análise in vitro do selamento marginal apical de duas técnicas de obturações de canais radiculares associadas a dois tipos de cones mestres”. Revista Brasileira de Odontologia 64 (2007): 76-79.
12. Jacobsen EL., et al. “Clinical aid: adapting the master gutta-percha cone for apical snugness”. Journal of Endodontics 10 (1984): 274.
13. Gallin DM. “Changes observed upon cutting the gutta-percha points”. New York State Dental Association 50 (1984): 212-213.
14. Gutmann JL and Hovland EJ. Problems in root canal obturation. In: Gutmann JL, Dumsha TC, Lovdahl PE, Hovland EJ, editors. “Problem solving in endodontics, 3^rd Edition”. St. Louis: Mosby (1997).
15. Emmanuel JNL Silva., et al. “Assessment of the tip surface of gutta-percha cones after different cutting methods”. Acta odontológica Latinoamericana 3 (2011): 236-239.

Citation

Citation: Brijila Kuriakose., et al. “Assessment of Tip Surface of Gutta-Percha After Cutting with Various Techniques".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 6.4 (2022): 76-79.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Brijila Kuriakose., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.