Search

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of conservative endodontic cavities (CECs) on root canal preparation, restoration, and biomechanical behavior of teeth prepared using different shaping systems and restorative materials., Methods: Ninety upper premolars with a bifurcated root were matched based on morphology and randomly assigned to a control group (n = 10) or 1 of the following experimental groups (n = 40): traditional endodontic cavity and CEC. Teeth were subdivided according to instrumentation (n = 10) as follows: ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Reciproc (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany), Reciproc Blue (VDW GmbH), and Hyflex EDM (Coltene/Whaledent, Altstätten, Switzerland). After canal obturation, teeth were restored using temporary material, conventional composite, regular bulk fill composite, or bulk fill flow combined with conventional composite. Before and after preparation and after obturation, the teeth were scanned using micro-computed tomographic imaging. Canal transportation (CT), the percentage of untouched canal surfaces (UCSs), voids in restoration (VRs), and residual filling material in the pulp chamber were evaluated. Finite element analysis, fracture resistance, and the failure pattern were recorded. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance and the Tukey and chi-square tests., Results: CECs had greater CT, percentage of filling material, and VRs compared with traditional endodontic cavities (P < .0001). The highest CT and UCSs were observed in CEC with ProTaper Universal. Bulk fill flow combined with conventional composite showed a lower percentage of VRs compared with other restorative materials (P < .05). Finite element analysis, fracture resistance, and failure pattern revealed similar behaviors in all groups (P > .05) ., Conclusions: CECs had a negative impact on root canal centralization, UCSs, cleaning of the pulp chamber, and percentage of VRs. Controlled memory instruments were the most adequate for the root canal preparation of CECs. The endodontic cavity did not influence the biomechanical behavior of restored teeth., (Copyright © 2021 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To compare two preparation systems and two sonic irrigation devices during the removal of root filling material from oval distal canals of extracted mandibular molars., Methodology: The distal canals in 40 extracted mandibular molars were shaped using the ProTaper Next system (Dentslpy Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), filled with Gutta Percha X2 (Dentsply Sirona), along with AH Plus sealer (Dentsply De Trey, Konstanz, Germany) and randomly divided into two groups (n = 20) according to volume of initial filling, preparation diameter and working length. One group was retreated using the Reciproc system (VDW, Munich, Germany), and the other using the 2Shape system (Micro-Mega, Besançon, France). A micro-CT scan was taken after the initial root filling and after retreatment to evaluate the volume of filling material remnants. The teeth were divided into four groups to test the supplementary effect of two sonic irrigation devices on removing filling material: Eddy (VDW) and MM1500 (Micro-Mega). In the first and second groups, 2Shape was followed subsequently by MM1500 and Eddy; in the third and fourth groups, Reciproc was followed by MM1500 and Eddy. A third micro-CT was taken to compare the remaining root filling material in all groups. Wilcoxon's signed rank tests, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis., Results: No significant difference was found for the volume of filling material removed between the Reciproc and 2Shape in the entire canal (P = 0.355). The volume dropped significantly from its initial value after removing the bulk of the root filling by 95.8% (from 4.71 to 0.22 mm 3 ) with the 2Shape (P < 0.001) and by 94.0% (from 5.05 to 0.33 mm 3 ) with the Reciproc (P < 0.001). Sonic activation significantly decreased the residual volume of filling material remnants by 3.21% (P = 0.013) in the first group, 1.38% (P = 0.012) in the second group, 1.83% (P = 0.008) in the third group and 1.83% (P = 0.012) in the fourth group. At the end, the percentage of residual material was not significantly different among the groups in the entire canal (P = 0.163)., Conclusion: In the distal oval canals of extracted mandibular molar teeth, there was no significant difference between the 2Shape and Reciproc systems in removing gutta-percha/sealer. Sonic activation with MM1500 and Eddy significantly improved filling material removal., (© 2019 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Endodontic obturating materials should form monoblocks, reinforcing the treated teeth against fracture. Aim: To evaluate and compare the effect of two resin sealers and a MTA sealer on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Materials and Methods: Fifty single-rooted mandibular premolars, decoronated at cemento-enamel junction, were divided into 5 groups (n = 10 each). Group 1 and group 2 served as negative and positive controls. Cleaning and shaping of root canals was done using ProTaper rotary files and 3% sodium hypochlorite irrigation. Obturation was done using AH plus (Dentsply, Germany) (group 3), MetaSEAL (Parkell, USA) (group 4), MTA Fillapex (Angeles, Brazil) (group 5) sealers and gutta-percha. Teeth were subjected to vertical loading using a universal testing machine and the point at which fracture of the roots occurred was recorded. The data was subjected to statistical analysis using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by pair-wise comparison using Tukey's Post-hoc test. Results: AH Plus showed better fracture resistance among the sealer groups. Statistically, no significant difference was found between MetaSEAL and Fillapex groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]