The use of a biocompatible cement in endodontic surgery. A randomized clinical trial 1

Thermal and volumetric assessment of endodontic filling techniques using infrared thermography and micro-CT

PURPOSE

To assess root temperature during filling techniques and quantify the volume of endodontic filling materials using infrared thermography (IT) and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT).

METHODS

Ninety premolars were divided into three groups: lateral condensation (LC), single cone (SC) and thermomechanical compaction (TMC). For thermal analysis, 45 teeth were assessed using a FLIR T650sc IT camera during filling techniques and 45 teeth were scanned using a Nikon micro-CT to assess gutta-percha, cement, and void volumes. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed (non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Friedman test with Tukey's bidirectional analysis of variance).

RESULTS

TMC showed the highest temperature increase at 15 s after the procedure and a significant temperature decrease at 45 s after its completion. TMC showed the largest volume of gutta-percha and LC the highest void volume.

CONCLUSION

The temperature increase generated by gutta-percha endodontic filling techniques is within acceptable limits. A greater volume of endodontic cement was observed for the SL and LC filling techniques.

Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy

BACKGROUND

Root canal therapy is a sequence of treatments involving root canal cleaning, shaping, decontamination, and obturation. It is conventionally performed through a hole drilled into the crown of the affected tooth, namely orthograde root canal therapy. When it fails, retrograde filling, which seals the root canal from the root apex, is a good alternative. Many materials are used for retrograde filling. Since none meets all the criteria an ideal material should possess, selecting the most efficacious material is of utmost importance. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of different materials used for retrograde filling in children and adults for whom retrograde filling is necessary in order to save the tooth.

SEARCH METHODS

An Information Specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 21 April 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. We also searched four databases in the Chinese language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different retrograde filling materials, with the reported success rate that was assessed by clinical or radiological methods for which the follow-up period was at least 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Records were screened in duplicate by independent screeners. Two review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate. Original trial authors were contacted for any missing information. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We followed Cochrane's statistical guidelines and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, all at high risk of bias, involving 1399 participants with 1471 teeth, published between 1995 and 2019, and six comparisons of retrograde filling materials. - Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) versus intermediate restorative material (IRM): there may be little to no effect of MTA compared to IRM on success rate at one year, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.22; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 222 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). - MTA versus super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA): there may be little to no effect of MTA compared to Super-EBA on success rate at one year, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.10; 1 study; 192 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). - Super-EBA versus IRM: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of Super-EBA compared with IRM on success rate at 1 year, with results indicating Super-EBA may reduce or have no effect on success rate (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; 1 study; 194 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). - Dentine-bonded resin composite versus glass ionomer cement: compared to glass ionomer cement, dentine-bonded resin composite may increase the success rate of the treatment at 1 year, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.59; 1 study; 122 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Same result was obtained when considering the root as unit of analysis at one year (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.09; 1 study; 127 roots; very low-certainty evidence). - Glass ionomer cement versus amalgam: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of glass ionomer cement compared with amalgam on success rate at one year, with results indicating glass ionomer cement may reduce or have no effect on success rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12; 1 study; 105 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). - MTA versus root repair material (RRM): there may be little to no effect of MTA compared to RRM on success rate at one year, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 278 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not assessed by any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present limited evidence, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion as to the benefits of any one material over another for retrograde filling in root canal therapy. We conclude that more high-quality RCTs are required.

The effect of retrograde material type and surgical techniques on the success rate of surgical endodontic retreatment: systematic review of prospective randomized clinical trials

Background

Endodontic surgical procedures, when performed, require retrograde filling materials that are biocompatible, non-toxic, non-irritant, dimensionally stable, and ideally promote bone formation. Precise evaluation of retrograde filling materials in clinical trials is necessary to give holistic view for properties of material and potential outcome from its use. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the effect of retrograde material type and surgical techniques on the success rate of surgical endodontic retreatment.

Methods

An electronic search was performed in the time frame between 1st of January 2000 to 1st of September 2020 using database.

Sources

Web of Science, PubMed and redundant hand searches through their references. Seven inclusion–exclusion criteria were set for the selection and identification of relevant articles. Risk of bias was conducted for the included studies.

Results

Nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The outcome of this review revealed that none of the reviewed trials totally-fulfilled CONSORT 2010 criteria.

Conclusions

In light of the outcome of this review, there is no enough evidence to support the superiority of certain retrograde filling material or surgical technique over another in the success rate of surgical endodontics retreatment. The variety of methodologies and strategies, such as patient selection, the method of treatment and study analysis, led to doubtful credibility of the obtained clinical evidence. Further prospective randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating the specific effect of the various used materials are needed.

Retrograde filling material in periapical surgery: a systematic review

Background

Periapical surgery focuses on the treatment of teeth with persistent periapical lesions when orthograde root canal treatment fails. Although MTA® is the gold standard material for retrograde filling, Biodentine® - a tricalcium silicate-based cement - has been proposed in order to resolve several of its limitations. A systematic review has been carried out to compare the physicochemical properties of Biodentine® versus MTA® as root-end filling material in periapical surgery.

Material and Methods

An electronic search was conducted by two independent examiners during March 2020 in the Cochrane, PubMed-MEDLINE and Scopus databases. In addition, a manual search was made in specialized journals. Comparative human or in vitro studies that evaluated bond strength, the presence of marginal gap and sealing ability were included. No restriction on publication date was applied. Animal studies, clinical cases, cases series and expert opinions were excluded.

Results

After analyzing 147 initially selected studies, 13 publications were included. Regarding bond strength, the studies seemed to evidence better performance of Biodentine® in both acidic and blood contaminated environments. In relation to the presence of marginal gap and sealing ability, the studies yielded contradictory results. According to some authors, the sealing ability of Biodentine® is greater than that of MTA® during the first 24 hours, though both materials prove equal after one week. Other authors recorded no significant differences.

Conclusions

Considering the limitations and heterogeneity of the studies included, there is not sufficient evidence to confirm the clinical superiority of Biodentine® as a root-end filling material in periapical surgery.

Key words:Biodentine, MTA, retrograde filling, periapical surgery.

Surgical management of an accessory canal in a maxillary premolar: a case report

We report the surgical endodontic treatment of a maxillary first premolar with a lateral lesion that originated from an accessory canal. Although lesions originating from accessory canals frequently heal with simple conventional endodontic therapy, some lesions may need additional and different treatment. In the present case, conventional root canal retreatment led to incomplete healing with the need for further treatment (i.e., surgery). Surgical endodontic management with a fast-setting calcium silicate cement was performed on the accessory canal using a dental operating microscope. At the patient's 9-month recall visit, the lesion was resolved upon radiography.

Bioceramic cement in the filling of bone defects in rats

Purpose

To evaluate PBS^®MCIMMO cement in the filling of bone defects.

Methods

Thirty-six adult male Wistar rats were divided into three groups of twelve individuals each (group 1, group 2 and group 3). In all groups, a bone failure in the femur was induced, 2.0 mm wide and 7.0 mm deep. In group 1, the PBS^®MCIMMO cement was applied to the bone defect produced and a titanium implant (CONNECTION^®) 1.5 mm thick and 6 mm long was installed. In group 2, only the PBS^® CIMMO cement was installed. In group 3, only bone failure was performed. Kruskal Wallis tests were performed to compare the mean area among the three groups.

Results

In all comparisons, significance was observed for group 2 (p = 0.0014–0.0026).

Conclusion

The PBS^®CIMMO cement induced bone neoformation, and integration between the newly formed bone, cement, and implant was observed.

Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: an updated overview - part II: other clinical applications and complications

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a dental material used extensively for vital pulp therapies (VPT), protecting scaffolds during regenerative endodontic procedures, apical barriers in teeth with necrotic pulps and open apices, perforation repairs as well as root canal filling and root-end filling during surgical endodontics. A number of bioactive endodontic cements (BECs) have recently been introduced to the market. Most of these materials have calcium and silicate in their compositions; however, bioactivity is a common property of these cements. These materials include the following: BioAggregate, Biodentine, BioRoot RCS, calcium-enriched mixture cement, Endo-CPM, Endocem, EndoSequence, EndoBinder, EndoSeal MTA, iRoot, MicroMega MTA, MTA Bio, MTA Fillapex, MTA Plus, Neo MTA Plus, Ortho MTA, Quick-Set, Retro MTA, Tech Biosealer, and TheraCal LC. It has been claimed that these materials have properties similar to those of MTA but without the drawbacks. In Part I of this review, the available information on the chemical composition of the materials listed above was reviewed and their applications for VPT was discussed. In this article, the clinical applications of MTA and other BECs will be reviewed for apexification, regenerative endodontics, perforation repair, root canal filling, root-end filling, restorative procedures, periodontal defects and treatment of vertical and horizontal root fractures. In addition, the literature regarding the possible drawbacks of these materials following their clinical applications is reviewed. These drawbacks include their discolouration potential, systemic effects and retreatability following use as a root filling material. Based on selected keywords, all publications were searched regarding the use of MTA as well as BECs for the relevant clinical applications. Numerous publications were found regarding the use of BECs for various endodontic applications. The majority of these investigations compared BECs with MTA. Despite promising results for some materials, the number of publications using BECs for various clinical applications was limited. Furthermore, most studies had several methodological shortcomings and low levels of evidence.

Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy

BACKGROUND

Root canal therapy is a sequence of treatments involving root canal cleaning, shaping, decontamination and obturation. It is conventionally performed through a hole drilled into the crown of the affected tooth, namely orthograde root canal therapy. For teeth that cannot be treated with orthograde root canal therapy, or for which it has failed, retrograde root filling, which seals the root canal from the root apex, is a good alternative. Many materials, such as amalgam, zinc oxide eugenol and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), are generally used. Since none meets all the criteria an ideal material should possess, selecting the most efficacious material is of utmost importance.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of different materials used for retrograde filling in children and adults for whom retrograde filling is necessary in order to save the tooth.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 13 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 13 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 13 September 2016); LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 13 September 2016); and OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005). ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (in Chinese, 1978 to 20 September 2016); VIP (in Chinese, 1989 to 20 September 2016); China National Knowledge Infrastructure (in Chinese, 1994 to 20 September 2016); and Sciencepaper Online (in Chinese, to 20 September 2016). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only that compared different retrograde filling materials, with reported success rate that was assessed by clinical or radiological methods for which the follow-up period was at least 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate. Original trial authors were contacted for any missing information. Two review authors independently carried out risk of bias assessments for each eligible study following Cochrane methodological guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies (916 participants with 988 teeth) reported in English. All the studies had high risk of bias. The six studies examined five different comparisons, including MTA versus intermediate restorative material (IRM), MTA versus super ethoxybenzoic acid cement (Super-EBA), Super-EBA versus IRM, dentine-bonded resin composite versus glass ionomer cement and glass ionomer cement versus amalgam. There was therefore little pooling of data and very little evidence for each comparison.There is weak evidence of little or no difference between MTA and IRM at the first year of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97 to 1.22; 222 teeth; quality of evidence: low). Insufficient evidence of a difference between MTA and IRM on success rate at the second year of follow-up (RR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.25; 86 teeth, 86 participants; quality of evidence: very low). All the other outcomes were based on a single study. There is insufficient evidence of any difference between MTA and Super-EBA at the one-year follow-up (RR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.10; 192 teeth, 192 participants; quality of evidence: very low), and only weak evidence indicating there might be a small increase in success rate at the one-year follow-up in favour of IRM compared to Super-EBA (RR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.01; 194 teeth; quality of evidence: very low). There was also insufficient and weak evidence to show that dentine-bonded resin composite might be a better choice for increasing retrograde filling success rate compared to glass ionomer cement at the one-year follow-up (RR 2.39; 95% CI: 1.60 to 3.59; 122 teeth, 122 participants; quality of evidence: very low). And there was insufficient evidence of a difference between glass ionomer cement and amalgam at both the one-year (RR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.12; 105 teeth; quality of evidence: very low) and five-year follow-ups (RR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.20; 82 teeth; quality of evidence: very low).None of these studies reported an adverse event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present limited evidence, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion as to the benefits of any one material over another. We conclude that more high-quality RCTs are required.