Intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study

Efficacy of Shock Wave-Enhanced Emission Photoacoustic Streaming (SWEEPS) in the Removal of Different Combinations of Sealers Used with Two Obturation Techniques: A Micro-CT Study

This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of SWEEPS in the removal of epoxy-resin-based and calcium-silicate-containing endodontic sealer combined with single-cone and carrier-based obturation techniques through a micro-CT analysis. Seventy-six single-rooted extracted human teeth with single root canal were instrumented with Reciproc instruments. Specimens were randomly divided into four groups (n = 19) according to the root canal filling material and obturation technique: (1) AH Plus sealer + Reciproc gutta-percha, (2) TotalFill BC sealer + TotalFill BC Points, (3) AH Plus sealer + Guttafusion obturator, and (4) MTA Fillapex + Guttafusion obturator. All specimens were re-treated one week later using Reciproc instruments. Following re-treatment, root canals were additionally irrigated using the Auto SWEEPS modality. The differences in the root canal filling remnants were analyzed by micro-CT scanning of each tooth after root canal obturation, after re-treatment, and after additional SWEEPS treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using an analysis of variance (p < 0.05). The additional treatment with SWEEPS significantly reduced the volume of the root canal filling materials in all experimental groups compared to the removal of root canal filling using only reciprocating instruments (p < 0.05). However, the root canal filling was not removed completely from any of the samples. SWEEPS can be used to enhance the removal of both epoxy-resin-based and calcium-silicate-containing sealers, in combination with single-cone and carrier-based obturation techniques.

Evaluation of coronal microleakage of intra-orifice barrier materials in endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review

Background

Endodontic success depends on complete sealing of the root canal orifice to prevent re-infection and re-Contamination of the treated teeth through microleakage. Intra-orifice barrier material provides a seal against micro-organisms, its by-products thus, preventing microleakage and subsequent endodontic failure. Several studies have been done to evaluate microleakage after placing various materials as IOB, but still there is no standardization for the same. Thus, this systematic review was conducted to evaluate the microleakage associated with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), composite, and glass ionomer cement (GIC) when used as IOB material.

Materials and Methods

Protocol was formulated in accordance with PRISMA checklist 2020 and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021226225). Electronic search from databases such as Medline/PubMed, Scopus, EBSCOhost, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were performed from the year 2000-2020. In vitro and ex vivo studies evaluating coronal microleakage after placing IOB material using methylene blue dye penetration test under a stereomicroscope were included. A total of 5 studies were included in the systematic review. After assessing the risk of bias using customized criteria referred from JBI critical appraisal tool, characteristics of the included studies, reason for exclusion of the studies, and data extraction sheet were prepared.

Results

All studies included in this systematic review reported that placement of an IOB material significantly reduces microleakage as compared to control groups. MTA used as an IOB showed less microleakage than composite and GIC.

Conclusion

MTA as IOB material demonstrated the least microleakage in vitro studies. However, in this systematic review, only in vitro studies were included. Thus, more studies in the form of randomized control trials are required to give a conclusive and definitive result.

Quantitative Microbial Leakage Evaluation of Restorative Materials with/without Antibacterial Primer as an Intracoronal Barrier: An Ex Vivo Study

AIM

Aim of this research was to assess the microbial leakage of restorative materials with/without antibacterial primer as an intracoronal barrier.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-five extracted single-rooted teeth were included in this study. The canals were cleaned, shaped, and obturated with gutta-percha and AH plus sealer at the established working length. After removing 2 mm of coronal gutta-percha, the teeth were incubated for 24 hours. The teeth were divided into groups according to the materials used as intracoronary orifice barriers as follows: • Group I: Clearfil Protect Bond/Clearfil AP-X • Group II: Xeno IV/Clearfil AP-X • Group III: Chemflex (glass ionomer) • Group IV: Positive control (no barrier) • Group V: Negative control (no barrier and inoculated with sterile broth) Sterile 2 chambers bacterial technique was used to assess the microleakage and Enterococcus faecalis was considered as a microbial marker. The percentage of samples leaked, the time taken for leakage, and the number of colony-forming units (CFUs) in the leaked samples were calculated and analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference found in bacterial penetration among the three investigated materials after 120 days of use as an intracoronal orifice barrier. This study can also infer that the leaked sample from the Clearfil Protect Bond showed the least mean number of CFUs (43 CFUs) followed by Xeno IV (61 CFUs) and glass ionomer cement (GIC) (63 CFUs).

CONCLUSION

This study concluded that all three experimental antibacterial primers performed better as intracoronal barrier. However, Clearfil Protect Bond with an antibacterial primer showed promising results as an intracoronal orifice barrier in reducing the number of bacterial leakages.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The significance of intracoronal orifice barriers in the success of endodontic treatment depends on the ability of the materials to prevent microleakage. This helps clinicians to provide successful antibacterial therapy against endodontic anaerobes.

Effect of an Intraorifice Barrier on Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies

The main cause of unsuccess in endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is due to bacterial recontamination. The placement of an intraorifice barrier (IOB) has been proposed for preventing this event in cases that the restoration is in an inadequate condition, enhancing the possibilities for predictable long-term success in endodontic therapy. Objectives. To evaluate through a systematic review and meta-analysis if it would be necessary to place an IOB in ETT. Materials and Methods. The present review is in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 Statement and is registered in the Open Science Framework. Two blinded reviewers carried out a comprehensive search in four databases up to July 10^th, 2021: MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were the ones which evaluated the use of an IOB in ETT in reducing microleakage with any material of choice and with any methods employed. Only in vitro studies published in English were included. Results. A total of thirty in vitro studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and seven of those were included in the quantitative analyses evaluating the following materials: bioceramic cement, glass-ionomer cement (GIC), and resin-based composite (RBC). Most of the included studies placed an IOB at a 3 mm depth. Reduction in microleakage was observed when an IOB was placed, regardless of the material employed (p ≤ 0.01). Among the materials, GIC and RBC performed similarly (p > 0.05), with the bioceramic subgroup being statistically superior to the GIC subgroup (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions. Although well-designed randomized clinical trials are required, the placement of an intraorifice barrier can significantly reduce microleakage in endodontically treated teeth, and the use of bioceramics as IOB seems to be the best available material for this purpose.

A novel technique of sculpting Biodentine in the restoration of iatrogenic dentin loss

Excessive tooth structure loss is a common iatrogenic error encountered during endodontic practice. Conservative treatment planning is essential to maintain the structural integrity in such teeth. This case report elucidates a novel approach in sculpting Biodentine as a dentin substitute followed by internal bleaching and restoration with fiber-reinforced composite.

A comparative evaluation of gutta percha removal and extrusion of apical debris by rotary and hand files

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Protaper retreatment files in comparison with RaCe, K3 and H-files for removal of gutta-percha and apically extruded debris using volumetric analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty extracted single rooted maxillary incisor teeth with straight canals and mature apices were selected for the study. After access cavity preparation, apical patency was confirmed with a size 10 K-file extending 1mm beyond the point at which it was first visible at the apical end. Working lengths were determined with the use of size 15 K-file. The canals were prepared in a step-back technique and the master apical file was size 30 for all teeth. 3% sodium hypochlorite was used as an irrigant after each instrumentation. Before final rinse, size 20 K-file was passed 1mm beyond the apex to remove any dentinal shaving plugs and maintain the apical patency. Then the canals were dried with paper points. The root canal was filled using standard gutta-percha points and zinc oxide eugenol sealer under lateral condensation technique. The teeth were then randomly divided into four groups of ten teeth each based on the instrument used for gutta percha removal. All the rotary instruments used in this study were rotated at 300rpm. The instruments used were: Group 1 - RaCe Files, Group 2 - ProTaper retreatment Files, Group 3 - K3 Files and Group 4 - H Files. The volume of the obturating material was calculated before and after removal using volumetric analysis with spiral CT. The removal efficacy with each instrument was calculated and statistically analysed.

RESULTS

The results of the study show that the ProTaper retreatment files (Group 2) (97.4%) showed the highest efficiency in the removal of obturating material, which was followed by RaCe (95.74%), K3 (92.86%) and H files (90.14%) with the efficiency in the decreasing order. Similarly the mean apical extrusion in H files (0.000 ± 0.002) was significantly lower than all the rotary instruments. However, the difference among the rotary files were not statistically significant (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

ProTaper retreatment files show significant difference over other groups in removal of obturating material and can be the system of choice in endodontic retreatment procedures.