Internal and external root resorption management: a report of two cases

Survey based assessment of diagnosis through periapical radiograph and CBCT and treatment of root resorption with Brazilian and American dentists and endodontists

Background

This study assesses and compares the knowledge level of endodontists (ENDs) and general dental practitioners (GPs) from Brazil and United States of America (USA) in the diagnosis and treatment of internal and external inflammatory root resorptions through periapical radiographic (PA) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations.

Material and Methods

A cross-sectional online questionnaire-based survey was presented to the volunteers containing questions regarding personal and professional profile, as well as three clinical cases of internal and external inflammatory root resorption. A series of multiple-choice questions about the diagnosis and treatment options were surveyed. The data collected was analysed by the Chi-square test with Yates correction with a significance level of 5 %.

Results

Most answers were considered adequate when all three questions about the diagnosis and all two questions relating to the treatment were answered accurately. A total of 374 dentists answered the survey (n: 229 from Brazil vs. 145 from USA) being 41% END and 59% GP. END presented higher level of knowledge than GP regarding to diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory root resorptions both in Brazil and USA (p<0.05); USA presented higher level of adequate responses than Brazil (p<0.05).

Conclusions

END achieved a level of knowledge of the diagnosis and treatment of root resorption superior to the GP. Comparing the results obtained in both countries, it was observed that the USA had a higher correct response rate than Brazil. Key words:Internal root resorption, external root resorption, management, diagnosis, treatment.

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.