RESUMO
In this case report, the regeneration method was used to treat the previously treated first molar, which presented with symptoms of pain during chewing and secondary acute apical periodontitis. Due to the importance of preserving the patient's permanent teeth in order to maintain optimal space and function, the regeneration treatment was performed in two visits and according to the American Association of Endodontists (AAE) guidelines. The continuation of tooth root development, healing of periapical radiolucency and positive response to sensibility test (cold test) were observed during follow-up radiographs at intervals of 6 months, 1 year & 2 year.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the incidence of dentinal crack formation by instrumentation with ProTaper Universal system (rotary, multi-file system), SafeSider (reciprocation movement, multi-file system) and Neolix (rotary, single-file system). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this in vitro study, 60 freshly extracted mandibular first molars were randomly divided into three experimental groups (n=15) and a control group containing unprepared teeth (n=15). Instrumentation in different groups was accomplished using either ProTaper, Neolix or SafeSider systems up to 25/0.08. The teeth were then sectioned at 3, 6 and 9 mm from the apex, and observed under a stereomicroscope for presence of dentinal cracks. Data were analyzed with Chi square test, Fisher's exact test and Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Micro cracks were seen in all experimental groups (13.3% in ProTaper, 26.7% in SafeSider and 40% in Neolix). There was a significant difference between Neolix and the control groups in microcrack formation (P=0.042). Micro cracks mainly occurred in the coronal section (9 mm). No microcrack occurred in the control group. CONCLUSION: Neolix rotary single-file system caused more dentinal cracks compared to the unprepared roots. All the instrumentation systems increased the number of micro cracks compared to unprepared teeth.
