Influence of composite insertion technique on gap formation.

AIM: To compare newer bulk-fill composites with an incrementally filled composite for adaptability and subsequent gap formation at the pulpal floor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class I cavities were prepared in 60 intact molars, with a shallow depression in the center of the pulpal floor. The samples were divided into four groups (n = 15), according to the material used; smart dentine replacement (SDR), SonicFill, Ever X Flow and Z350 XT, restored to a depth of 4 mm. Following thermocycling, samples were sectioned buccolingually and examined under a stereomicroscope. Seven samples from each group were coated with nail varnish except for approximately 1 mm around the tooth restoration junction. These samples were examined under stereomicroscope after staining with 2% buffered methylene blue dye. The remaining samples were examined under a scanning electron microscope for gap formation. The data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Bonferroni test. RESULTS: SDR showed the significantly best adaptability as compared to both SonicFill and Ever X Flow (comparable). However, significantly least adaptive capacity was seen in the incrementally filled group (Z350 XT). CONCLUSION: Bulk-fill composites performed better than incremental composites, demonstrating better adaptability and less gap formation at the pulpal floor.

Comparison of efficacy of various root canal irrigation systems in removal of smear layer generated at apical third: An SEM study.

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.

Use of CBCT in the Successful Management of Endodontic Cases.

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.