Objective: The aim was to evaluate and compare the adaptability of the three obturation materials: gutta-percha, GuttaFlow, and Soft-Core to the root canal walls.
Materials and methods: Totally 30 mandibular premolar teeth were selected. The teeth were standardized and prepared with ProTaper rotary files. The teeth were randomly and equally
divided into three groups—gutta-percha group: obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer using lateral compaction technique; Soft-Core group: obturated using Soft-Core system; and GuttaFlow: obturated with GuttaFlow. The roots of the teeth were sectioned at three levels (apical, middle, and coronal) and were observed under a stereomicroscope at 40× magnification. Area of voids (AVs), frequency of voids, and location of the voids were analyzed using image analysis software.
Results: The lowest mean of AV was obtained by GuttaFlow 1.25% ± 1.93, followed by gutta-percha 1.33% ± 2.16, and Soft- Core 1.74% ± 2.23. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference among the three groups and the levels of the root. The frequency of voids in the coronal and the middle levels was more than the apical for all groups. The highest frequency of voids was detected in Soft-Core, followed by GuttaFlow and gutta-percha respectively. The voids were located in the interphase
between sealer and obturation material as well as sealer and root canal walls in the gutta-percha and Soft-Core groups, whereas it was almost confined to the core for GuttaFlow group.
Conclusion: GuttaFlow has a better adaptability to the walls compared with Soft-Core system and laterally compacted gutta-percha with AH Plus sealer.
Clinical significance: GuttaFlow is an appropriate obturation material to enhance endodontic treatment.