Basoglu, Ezgi CoskunKocak, SibelOzdemir, OlcayKocak, Mustafa MuratSaglam, Baran Can2024-09-292024-09-2920231329-19471747-4477https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12754https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14619/6209To compare the penetration of Ah Plus and MTA Fillapex after irrigation activation with sonic, passive ultrasonic, SWEEPS and XP-Endo Finisher using confocal microscopy. Instrumented root canals of 160 mandibular premolar teeth were allocated randomly to four groups (n = 40/group) and eight subgroups according to the activation techniques and canal sealers (n = 20/subgroup). After the obturation, three sections at 1-2, 5-6 and 9-10 mm levels from the apex were examined. Penetration area and maximum penetration depth values were represented as mean and standard deviation, and results below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. For penetration area and maximum penetration depth, the statistical difference was found in terms of material, device and region (Maximum penetration depth: p = 0.006, p < 0.001, p < 0.001; Penetration area: p = 0.004, p < 0.001, p < 0.001). SWEEPS was found to be relatively higher than other groups. Sealers presented similar results when evaluated independently of the region. The use of SWEEPS for irrigation activation is promising in terms of tubule penetration.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessconfocal laser scanning microscopydentinal tubule penetrationirrigation activationroot canal sealerArticle10.1111/aej.127542-s2.0-8515141790938936971332Q238149WOS:000959277800001Q3