
FIGURE 3Image of the apical third demonstrating the maximum penetration depth achieved by (a) BIO-C® Temp + UA and (b) UltraCal XS + UA.
UA: Ultrasonic Activation

FIGURE 4Penetration area (μm²) achieved by: (a) BIO-C®Temp vs. BIO-C®Temp + UA; (b) UltraCal XS vs. UltraCal XS + UA; (c) BIO-C®Temp + UA vs. UltraCal XS + UA. *: p=0.0339, **: p<0.008. ns: No significant differences; UA: Ultrasonic activation
When comparing the two drugs in the apical third after ultrasonic activation, BIO-C® Temp + UA showed a statistically significant greater maximum penetration depth than UltraCal XS + UA (p=0.0005) (Figure 2c and Figure 3). No differences were found when comparing both drugs without ultrasonic activation, either in the middle or apical third (p>0.05).
Ultrasonic activation increased the penetration area of BIO-C® Temp in both the middle and apical thirds, but the increase was only statistically significant in the apical third (p=0.0016) (Figure 4a). UA slightly increased the penetration area of UltraCal XS in the middle and apical thirds, but the changes were not statistically significant (p>0.05) (Figure 4b).

FIGURE 5. Image of the apical third showing the penetration area achieved by (a) BIO-C®Temp + UA and (b) UltraCal XS + UA. UA: Ultrasonic activation
The penetration area of BIO-C® Temp + UA was significantly greater than that of UltraCal XS + UA, both in the middle third (p=0.0339) and the apical third (p=0.0075) (Figure 4c and Figure 5).
CONCLUSIONS:
· Ultrasonic activation increases the tubular penetration (both in depth and in area) of BIO-C® Temp in the apical third, but has no significant effect on Ultracal XS.
· BIO-C® Temp has a greater depth and area of tubular penetration than Ultracal XS after ultrasonic activation.