Search

Objectives: To compare the use of orifice barriers (OB) in root-filled teeth (RFT) between specialist endodontic practitioners (SEP) and general and other specialist practitioners (GDP+), and identify common materials, reasons for selection, and techniques., Methods: An online survey was distributed to SEP and GDP+ practising in Australia. Demographic and multiple-choice questions relating to material selection and technique choices were asked to evaluate and relate usage patterns to practising and training backgrounds. Fisher's exact tests were undertaken to compare categorical variables across practitioner groups. Significance level was set at p<.05., Results: There were 457 eligible responses: 393(86%) GDP+ and 64(14%) SEP. Of 429 reporting endodontically treating or restoring teeth, 317(73.9%) placed OB; preferred depth of root filling removal by most (91.8%) was ≤ 2 mm, with more SEP preferring 2 mm than GDP+(p=.02). Preferred materials for OB were conventional and resin-modified GIC (GIC), resin composite materials (RC), Cavit™ and zinc polycarboxylate cement (ZPC). 'Ease of use' was a common reason among all practitioners for GIC and RC. Significantly more SEP(p<.001) chose ZPC in all teeth and more commonly because of 'Ease of use' for both posterior (p<.001) and anterior (p=.002) teeth. All ZPC-using SEP preferred using a paste-filler/lentulo spiral, significantly more than GDP+ for posterior (p<.001) and anterior (p=.002) teeth. Cavit™ was often chosen for 'Sealing ability'., Conclusions: OB were widely placed by dental practitioners in Australia, with a small group of materials selected, most commonly for ease of use or sealing ability. The findings of this study suggest that further research should be undertaken to investigate the relative performance of these materials as OB and to inform the clinician's choices when restoring RFT., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To compare fracture characteristics of root-filled teeth with variable cavity design restored with a low shrinkage silorane and methacrylate-based resin composite., Methods: 77 extracted maxillary premolars were divided randomly into seven groups: (Group 1) intact teeth; (Groups 2-4) MOD plus endodontic access with the buccopalatal width of the occlusal isthmus equals one third of the intercuspal width; (Groups 5-7) MOD plus endodontic access with the buccopalatal width of the occlusal isthmus equals one half of the intercuspal width. Groups 2 and 5 were left unrestored, Groups 3 and 6 were restored with a silorane-based resin composite (Filtek P90) and Groups 4 and 7 with a methacrylate-based resin composite (Z250). Teeth were loaded in a universal testing machine; load and fracture patterns were recorded and compared statistically using 2-way ANOVA and t-test for pairwise comparisons and 1-way ANOVA with Dunnett test for multiple comparisons., Results: Unrestored teeth became progressively weaker with more extensive preparations, Group 5 (unfilled ½) showed the lowest fracture load among the groups (71±22N, P<0.001). Restorations increased the fracture strength of unrestored teeth regardless of cavity size (P<0.001), but was still significantly weaker than sound teeth, with no significant difference between silorane and methacrylate groups. Failure of restored teeth was mostly adhesive at the tooth restoration interface., Conclusions: Silorane-based resin composite have no superior strengthening effect over the conventional methacrylate-based resin composite in restoration of root filled teeth. Both materials showed similar fracture patterns., Clinical Significance: Root filled teeth are considerably weakened via restorative and endodontic procedures. A direct adhesive restoration will aid in preserving tooth structure as far as it provides enough strength., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The long-term survival of endodontically treated teeth is an issue of high priority focus in modern restorative dentistry. In available literature, survival is generally high and comparable with implants. For more compromised teeth treated in a specialist clinic, survival rate may be lower. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the 10-year survival rate of teeth treated in a public endodontic specialist clinic., Methods: From a database of 15,000 examined teeth, 420 teeth in 330 patients were randomly selected and included. Available potential preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative prognostic factors were registered. Ten-year tooth survival was recorded by scrutinizing records and by contacting referring dentists and patients., Results: The overall Kaplan-Meier estimated 10-year survival rate was 81.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7%-85.5%). Placement of a crown, adjusted hazard ratio 0.27 (95% CI, 0.12-0.61), P = .0016, and age-adjusted hazard ratio 1.31 per 10 years (95% CI, 1.11-1.55), P = .0012, were significant independent predictors for estimated survival rate. Seventy-three teeth (17.4%) in 69 patients were extracted during the 10-year follow-up period. The declared reason for extraction was related to endodontic diagnoses in only 5 of the cases (6.8%)., Conclusions: Approximately 80% of the teeth treated at this specialist clinic in endodontics survived at least for 10 years. Teeth in young persons and teeth restored with a crown postoperatively survived significantly better. To further explore the importance of the postoperative restoration in endodontically treated teeth, randomized controlled trials need be carried out., (Copyright © 2015 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)