ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: When a nonsurgical endodontic treatment is ineffective, surgery is necessary. This entails putting a retrofilling to seal the tooth's apex. Exposing the lesion, performing a curettage, exposing the root apex, resecting it, preparing the root end, and lastly filling the cavity with the proper material are all steps in endodontic surgery. Thus, the aim of this study is to compare the apical microleakage of four root-end filling materials in cavities prepared using ultrasonic retro tip in in vitro conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An in vitro study was conducted on 60 extracted single-rooted teeth and was cut at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). They were biomechanically prepared and obturated. Apical 3 mm root-end resection was done using a diamond disc. Root-end cavities were made using an ultrasonic retro tip. Teeth were separated into four groups and filled with SuperEBA®ï¸ ethoxy-benzoic acid (EBA; Keystone Industries, New Jersey), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), Biodentine (Septodont, France), and TotalFill Bioceramic Root Repair Material (BC RRM; FKG Dentaire Sàrl, Switzerland). The samples were kept in methylene blue dye and split longitudinally. The degree of dye penetration was observed under a stereomicroscope and scored. Finally, the results were analyzed. RESULTS: TotalFill BC RRM and Biodentine showed the least apical microleakage (p <0.05). Group 1 samples had the highest mean microleakage, followed by Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4 samples. CONCLUSION: All of the sample groups showed some evidence of microleakage, but not all of the samples showed leaking. SuperEBA (Group 1) demonstrated the highest microleakage when compared to the other groups.
ABSTRACT
AIM: The aim of the study is to compare the efficacy of different irrigation systems comparing irrigation with syringe and needle (Dispo Van), Max-I-Probe needle (Dentsply Maillefer), EndoActivator (Dentsply Maillefer), and EndoVac (Sybron Endo) in removing the smear layer generated at apical third. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Instrumentation was done in 40 extracted premolars using different irrigation regimes (Group 1, saline and syringe; Group 2, Max-I-Probe needles with NaOCl and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA); Group 3, irrigant activation with EndoActivator using needlesNaOCl and EDTA; and Group 4, irrigation with EndoVac using needles NaOCl and EDTA). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The percentage of debris was seen with scanning electron microscope (SEM) and evaluated using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Mann-Whitney test for significance. RESULTS: The mean score ± standard deviation for the conventional group was 2.8 ± 0.42 with median value of 3.00 (2-3). The results for the Max-I-Probe needle group were 2.3 ± 0.48 with median value of 2.00 (2-3) The mean debris score for EndoActivator group were 0.8 ± 0.42 with median value of 1 (0-1). The mean debris score for EndoVac group were 0.4 ± 0.52 with median value of 1 (0-1). CONCLUSION: EndoVac and EndoActivator performed much better than other available systems in removing the smear layer from apical third. So they should be incorporated as a regular part of the irrigation regime.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to emphasize the use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) for root canal treatment. Two case reports are presented where CBCT has been used to locate and eventually treat extra canals in maxillary first molars. Dental clinicians should be aware of the anatomical variations in maxillary molars. CBCT should be an essential part of the diagnosis prior to initiating root canal treatment.
