RESUMEN
AIM AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the apical sealing ability and periapical extrusion in the Thermafil™ obturation technique, with and without an apical barrier of MTA, with lateral condensation technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty freshly extracted human central incisors were instrumented with the crown down technique and divided into three experimental groups. Group I: lateral condensation technique obturation, group II: Thermafil obturation (DENTSPLY Tulsa), and group III: this group was obturated into two parts; first MTA (ProRoot) was placed in apical 3 mm and later the remaining canal was obturated with Thermafil™ obturation technique (DENTSPLY Tulsa). AH Plus sealer was used in all the groups. Specimens of all the groups were layered with nail paint excluding the apical 3 mm. Twenty-four hours later, all the teeth were suspended in Black India ink for 48 hours. Finally, all the teeth were decalcified, rendered transparent and linear dye leakage and periapical extrusion was measured using ×60 magnification of stereomicroscope with an in-built ruler. RESULTS: A Chi-square test done to evaluate periapical extrusion showed there was a significant difference found among all the groups (p < 0.05), whereas in case of linear apical dye leakage using a Student's "t" test showed there was no significant difference among all the groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite showing apical leakage, the thermo-plasticized gutta-percha obturation technique can be advantageous when used with MTA as an apical barrier since there is no scope for apical extrusion along with the benefit of three-dimensional obturation of the root canal system when compared with the lateral condensation technique. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Rao AS, Mathur R, Shah NC, et al. Evaluation of Extrusion and Apical Seal of Thermafil™ Obturation with and without MTA as an Apical Barrier in Comparison with Lateral Condensation Technique: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(S-1):S40-S44.
RESUMEN
AIM: The present study aims to compare the peri-implant bone status around immediately loaded dental implants treated with aminobisphosphonate solution and untreated control implants in terms of clinical and radiographical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 24 patients were randomly divided equally into two groups. This study was conducted in accordance to the Helsinki's declaration of 1975, revised in 2000, and with the approval of the institutional ethical committee. In the control group after preparation, osteotomy sites were irrigated with normal saline solution, whereas in the test group osteotomy sites were irrigated with modified bisphosphonate solution and then TRX-OP, Hi-Tec dental implants were inserted. Clinical parameters, such as modified plaque and gingival index, probing depth, mobility, and radiographic parameters were recorded at baseline (0), 3, 6, and 9 months. Data analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 17 for windows, and the statistical techniques employed were repeated measures analysis of variance, independent sample t-test, and paired sample t-test. RESULTS: Reduction in mean radiographic bone levels (height) was observed on the mesial and distal aspect of the control group in comparison to its baseline at all intervals. In the test group, there was reduction in mean radiographic bone levels on mesial and distal aspect of the implant site in comparison to its baseline till 6-month follow up, however, at 9 month, there was gain in bone level on both mesial and distal aspect of implant. This represents the effectiveness of sodium alendronate in enhancing the bone formation. On comparison, between both groups on mesial and distal aspect of implants, statistically significant differences were observed at 3 and 9 months on mesial and distal aspect, respectively, without any clinical evidence of mobility in the test group. CONCLUSION: Implant site treated with aminobisphosphonate solution represents greater efficacy in enhancing bone formation when used as an irrigant; thus, it is considered beneficial in implant dentistry.
