METHODS: Recently extracted lower first premolars were randomly categorized into three experimental groups (n = 15 samples), positive control (n = 5 samples), and negative control group (n = 5 sample). Samples from the experimental groups and positive control group were subject to cavity Class I occlusal preparation followed by modified coronal pulpotomy. Different types of bioceramic dressing material were placed in 3 mm thickness accordingly, group 1 (Biodentine), group 2 (MTA Angelus), and group 3 (ProRoot MTA). No dressing material was placed in the positive control group (group 4). All samples were placed in the incubator for 24 h at 37℃, 100% humidity, for the materials to be completely set. The final restoration was placed using the Z350 resin composite. A double layer of nail varnish was applied over all the sample surfaces except the occlusal site. Whereas the samples' surfaces in the negative control, were completely covered. A 3 mm length was measured from the root apex of the samples from each group, before proceeding with the resection. The bacterial leakage test was performed using Enterococcus faecalis TCC 23,125, and a sample from each experimental group was randomly chosen for SEM. Data analysis was conducted under the One-way ANOVA test, completed by Tukey's post hoc test.
RESULTS: There is a significant difference in sealing ability and marginal adaptation between the groups. (p Root MTA had the superior sealing ability and marginal adaptation compared to Biodentine and MTA Angelus.
CONCLUSION: The ProRoot MTA as a coronal pulpotomy pulp dressing material, was found to have a better marginal adaptation and sealing ability compared to three other bioceramics materials. The material would be the better choice during clinical settings and procedures.
METHODS: An electronic search in PubMed and major endodontic journals was conducted using appropriate key words to identify investigations that examined the effectiveness of obturation material removal assessed by micro-computed tomography.
RESULTS: Among 345 studies, 22 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Seven studies compared hand instrumentation with Nickel-Titanium rotary or reciprocating systems. Three studies investigated rotary systems, and another three studies explored reciprocation. Eight studies compared rotary systems and reciprocation in removing filling materials from the root canal system. Other factors, such as the role of solvents and irrigant agitation, were discussed.
CONCLUSIONS: The application of different instrumentation protocols can effectively, but not completely, remove the filling materials from the root canal system. Only hand instrumentation was not associated with iatrogenic errors. Reciprocating and rotary systems exhibited similar abilities in removing root filling material. Retreatment files performed similarly to conventional ones. Solvents enhanced penetration of files but hindered cleaning of the root canal. The role of irrigant agitation was determined as controversial.
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: 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.