Search

Abstract: Microdimensioned osteosynthesis using miniplates has been common practice in maxillofacial surgery. However, tooth injury during the application of the miniplates have been reported in few papers. In this case, a 32-yr-old female patient, whose two teeth were necrosed because of the perforation during screw insertion was presented. The reason of the perforations during the rigid internal fixation was the lack of radiographic assessment because of the pregnancy. Maxillary right first premolar and maxillary left canine were perforated and necrosed because of the screw insertion. The necrosed teeth were detected 1 yr after the rigid internal fixation. The root canals of nonvital teeth were filed using step-down approach. Cold lateral condensation of gutta-percha was used to fill the canals. Six-month recall visits were scheduled and there was no problem after 2-yr follow-up period. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: To comparatively evaluate the amount of apically extruded debris when ProTaper, ProFile, and HERO Shaper were used for the instrumentation of root canals. Study design: Sixty human mandibular central incisor teeth were randomly assigned to 3 groups, 20 teeth in each. The teeth in the 3 groups were instrumented according to the manufacturers'' instructions until the working length, with ProTaper, ProFile, and HERO Shaper rotary instruments respectively. The debris produced was collected in polyethylene tubes. The liquid inside the tubes was removed by lyophilization and the remaining debris was calculated for each group and compared. Results: All instruments tested produced a measurable amount of debris. No statistically significant difference was observed between ProTaper and HERO Shaper in terms of debris extrusion (P > .05). Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed between ProFile and HERO Shaper even though HERO Shaper extruded a relatively higher amount of debris (P > .05). On the other hand, ProTaper extruded significantly more amount of debris compared to ProFile (P < .001). Conclusions: ProTaper caused a significantly higher amount of debris extrusion compared to ProFile. No statistically significant difference was observed among the other groups tested. As the quantity of debris extrusion is not the only factor responsible for acute exacerbations, future studies can be planned that focus on the types of bacteria causing flare-ups and methods for their elimination. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: To comparatively evaluate the shaping efficacies of HERO Shaper rotary instruments and Nitiflex hand files. Study design: The mesial roots of 40 mandibular molars were used. In 20 teeth, the mesiobuccal canals were instrumented with HERO Shaper and the mesiolingual canals with Nitiflex. In the remaining 20 teeth, the mesiobuccal canals were instrumented with Nitiflex and the mesiolingual canals with HERO Shaper. Pre- and postoperative sections were obtained from the coronal, middle, and apical portions and analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student t test. Results: More dentin was removed from the middle portion with HERO Shaper (P < .05). No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of transportation (P >.05). No instrument fracture or deformation was noted. Conclusions: Both HERO Shaper and Nitiflex can be recommended for clinical practice. Further studies can focus on the comparison of HERO Shaper with other rotary instruments as there is an increasing trend for the utilization of these systems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the quality of root canal fillings and type of permanent coronal restorations and their association with the periapical status in a Turkish subpopulation. Study design: There were 1268 endodontically treated teeth from 280 panoramic radiographs that were evaluated. Two observers assessed the radiographs using an x-ray viewer with 2 times magnification. Teeth were classified according to the type of restorations. The quality of root canal fillings were evaluated according to the criteria determined by Tronstad et al. Apical status was assessed by the Periapical Index scores (PAI) proposed by Ørstavik et al. Chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. Results: There were 59.5% of endodontically treated teeth that showed healthy periapex. Teeth with good endodontic treatment showed statistically significant high healthy periapex rates regardless of the type of the restoration. In addition, the evaluation of the entire material also showed that the roots with posts had significantly more periapical pathosis than roots without posts (P = .001). Conclusions: It can be concluded that, although the quality of the root canal filling plays a key role in the outcome of endodontic therapy, the type of restoration can also be a contributing factor in the treatment outcome. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]