{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01876172607879925, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008755472170106316, 'mean_word_length': 5.106870229007634, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Microleakage of packable composites used in post spaces condensed using different methods.

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the apical and coronal microleakage of a packable composite material compacted by either hand or ultrasonic condensers when placed in post spaces. Forty-two extracted anterior teeth were used. After conventional obturation of the root canals, parallel post spaces 5 mm in depth and 2 mm in diameter were prepared using Gates Glidden and diamond burs. A primer and a dentin bonding agent (Prime & Bond NT) was applied to the etched surface for 30 seconds and light polymerized for 40 seconds. Surefil packable composite resin was inserted in four equal increments and each polymerized for 40 seconds. Half of the specimens were compacted with an ultrasonic tip and the other half with a mechanical hand compactor. After immersion in the dye, the teeth were sectioned longitudinally and dye penetration was evaluated using a stereomicroscope and microleakage recorded in mm. A One-Way Analysis of Variance indicated the two condensing methods were not statistically different (p>0.05). When microleakage was compared within groups, there was also no statistical difference between coronal or apical microleakage (p>0.05). In an in vitro environment, ultrasonic condensers do not offer any advantage over hand condensers. Both the coronal and apical portions of the root had microleakage indicating that regardless of the condensation method and the use of a packable composite, there is still microleakage that could potentially create further clinical problems.