METHODOLOGY: Eighty-four mandibular first premolars were split into seven groups (and n = 12), Group 1: Dia-Root, Group 2: One-Fil, Group 3: BioRoot RCS, Group 4: AH Plus, Group 5: CeraSeal, Group 6: iRoot SP, Group 7: GP without sealer (control). Two groups were made, one for dentinal tubule penetration and the other for push-out bond strength; the total sample size was one hundred sixty-eight. Root canal treatment was performed using a method called the crown down technique, and for obturation, the single cone technique was used. A confocal laser scanning microscope (Leica, Microsystem Heidel GmbH, Version 2.00 build 0585, Germany) was used to evaluate dentinal tubule penetration, and Universal Testing Machine was utilised to measure the push-out bond strength (Shimadzu, Japan) using a plunger size of 0.4 mm and speed of 1mm/min. Finally, the adhesive pattern of the sealers was analysed by HIROX digital microscope (KH-7700). Statistical analysis was carried out by a one-way Anova test, Dunnet's T3 test, and Chi-square test.
RESULTS: Highest dentinal tubule penetration was noticed with One-Fil (p<0.05), followed by iRoot SP, CeraSeal, AH Plus, Dia-Root also, the most negligible value was recorded for BioRoot RCS. Meanwhile, BioRoot RCS (p<0.05) demonstrated the greater value of mean push-out bond strength, followed by One-fil, iRoot SP, CeraSeal, AH Plus and Dia-Root. Regarding adhesive pattern, most of the samples were classified as type 3 and type 4 which implies greater sealing ability and better adherence to the dentinal wall. However, BioRoot RCS revealed the most type 4 (p<0.05), followed by AH Plus, One-Fil, CeraSeal and Dia-Root.
CONCLUSION: The highest dentinal tubule penetration was shown by One-Fil compared to other groups. Meanwhile, BioRoot RCS had greater push-out bond strength and more adhesive pattern than other tested materials.
METHODS: A total sample of 90 mandibular premolar teeth was divided into 2 groups (2 × 45 canals): the GP group and ER group. Each group was further divided into 3 subgroups (n = 15): cold lateral compaction (CLC), warm lateral compaction (WLC) and single cone (SC). The teeth were subsequently embedded in resin and sectioned horizontally at 1, 3, 6 and 9 mm. All sections were then viewed with a stereomicroscope at ×40 magnification. The area occupied by core filling materials was determined using Cell^D software.
RESULTS: With CLC, the percentage of core filling materials in the ER group was significantly higher than in the GP group at the 1- and 3-mm levels. Similarly, with WLC, the percentage of core filling material in the ER group was significantly higher than in the GP group at the 1-, 3- and 9-mm levels. With SC, the percentage of core filling materials in the ER group was significantly higher than in the GP group at all levels.
CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the resin-coated GP/EndoREZ® sealer is superior to the gutta-percha/AH Plus in the percentage of core filling material.
Objectives: The aims and objectives of this study were to compare the quality of root fillings in artificially created internal resorption cavities filled with warm vertical compaction, lateral condensation, Obtura II along with System B, E and Q plus along with System B, and Thermafil, and to calculate the percentage of gutta-percha, sealer, and voids using an ImageJ software.
Results: Results between the warm vertical compaction (group I), lateral condensation (group II), Obtura II with System B (group III), E and Q plus with System B (group IV), and Thermafil (group V), group III showed the highest percentage of gutta-percha plus sealer and gutta-percha, and least number of voids, which was statistically significant (P < 0.000).
Conclusion: It can be concluded that Obtura II along with System B was found to be the most suitable obturation technique for the management of teeth exhibiting internal resorption. Thermafil was found to give the poorest obturation quality when used to fill the teeth with internal resorption. Similarly, lateral condensation technique was observed to show maximum sealer and hence was not ideal for the management of internal resorptive cavities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-three freshly extracted human maxillary central incisors were used for the study. The teeth were instrumented with K-flex files and obturated using lateral condensation technique with GP and AH Plus sealer. The teeth were divided into three retreatment groups, each group consisting of 21 teeth. Group I: D-RaCe desobturation files (D-RaCe); group II: ProTaper Universal retreatment files (PTUR); group III: Hedstrom files (H-file). After removal of GP, the teeth were split longitudinally and divided into three equal parts: Cervical, middle, and apical third. The middle and apical thirds of all root halves were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM). The total surface area covered by the residual debris was evaluated using Motic Image plus 2.0 software. Statistical analysis was done by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test with a p-value <0.05 used to determine significance and Tukey's multiple post hoc tests used for comparison between the groups, and 't' test was done for comparison between the thirds within the same group.
RESULTS: The PTUR retreatment files showed overall better performance compared with D-RaCe files and H-files. The PTUR files performed better at middle third compared with others. The PTUR files and D-RaCe files performed equally at apical third better than H-files.
CONCLUSION: ProTaper retreatment files are better compared with D-RaCe files and H-files for the retreatment of the previously endodontically treated teeth.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Highest efficacy for the removal of GP was shown by ProTaper Universal System followed by D-RaCe and H-file.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 180 root slices from 60 single-canal anterior teeth were prepared and assigned to 5 experimental groups (n = 36 in each group), designated as G1 (AH Plus®/gutta-percha), G2 (TotalFill BC™ sealer/BC-coated gutta-percha), G3 (TotalFill BC™ sealer/gutta-percha), G4 (EndoREZ® sealer/EndoREZ®-coated gutta-percha), and G5 (EndoREZ® sealer/gutta-percha). Push-out bond strengths of 18 root slices in each group were assessed at 2 weeks and the other 18 at 3 months after obturation using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. An independent t test was used to compare the mean push-out bond strength for each group at 2 weeks and 3 months after obturation.
RESULTS: The mean push-out bond strengths of G4 and G5 were significantly lower than those of G1, G2, and G3 (p < 0.05) at both 2 weeks (G1: 1.46 ± 0.29 MPa, G2: 1.74 ± 0.43 MPa, G3: 1.74 ± 0.43 MPa, G4: 0.66 ± 0.31 MPa, G5: 0.74 ± 0.47 MPa) and 3 months after obturation (G1: 1.70 ± 1.05 MPa, G2: 3.69 ± 1.20 MPa, G3: 2.84 ± 0.83 MPa, G4: 0.14 ± 0.05 MPa, G5: 0.24 ± 0.10 MPa). The mean push-out bond strengths of G2 (3.69 ± 1.20 MPa) and G3 (2.84 ± 0.83 MPa) were higher at 3 months compared to 2 weeks after obturation (G2: 1.74 ± 0.43 MPa, G3: 1.33 ± 0.29 MPa).
CONCLUSION: The TotalFill BC™ obturation system (G2) and the TotalFill BC™ sealer/gutta-percha (G3) showed comparable bond strength to AH Plus®. Their bond strength increased over time, whereas the EndoREZ® obturation system (G4) and EndoREZ sealer (G5) had low push-out bond strength which decreased over time.
Materials and Methods: A total of 8,030 intraoral images were retrospectively collected from 3 groups of undergraduate clinical dental students. The type of examination, stage of the procedure, and reasons for repetition were analysed and recorded. The repeat rate was calculated as the total number of repeated images divided by the total number of examinations. The weighted Cohen's kappa for inter- and intra-observer agreement was used after calibration and prior to image analysis.
Results: The overall repeat rate on intraoral periapical images was 34.4%. A total of 1,978 repeated periapical images were from endodontic assessment, which included working length estimation (WLE), trial gutta-percha (tGP), obturation, and removal of gutta-percha (rGP). In the endodontic imaging, the highest repeat rate was from WLE (51.9%) followed by tGP (48.5%), obturation (42.2%), and rGP (35.6%). In bitewing images, the repeat rate was 15.1% and poor angulation was identified as the most common cause of error. A substantial level of intra- and interobserver agreement was achieved.
Conclusion: The repeat rates in this study were relatively high, especially for certain clinical procedures, warranting training in optimization techniques and radiation protection. Repeat analysis should be performed from time to time to enhance quality assurance and hence deliver high-quality health services to patients.