A Comparative Evaluation of Apical Leakage using Three Root Canal Sealants: An in vitro Study.

AIM: Apical leakage is one of the drawbacks leading to endodontic failure. Various root canal sealants have been tried in endodontics. The present study was conducted to compare root canal sealants such as Endorez, Realseal, and Metaseal in preventing apical leakage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty mandibular single-canal premolars were divided into three groups of 20 each. Group I teeth were sealed with Endorez, group II teeth with Realseal, and group III teeth with Metaseal. After completing endodontic treatment in all teeth and sealing with above sealants, glucose leakage value was assessed at 1st, 8th, and 15th day. RESULTS: At day 1 [mean ± standard deviation (SD)], leakage was 0.416 ± 0.011 in group I, 0.234 ± 0.09 in group II, and 0.328 ± 0.19 in group III. On 8th day, it was 2.124 ± 0.108 in group I, 0.624 ± 0.102 in group II, and 1.31 ± 0.24 in group III. On 15th day, it was 5.178 ± 0.125 in group I, 3.122 ± 0.150 in group II, and 4.25 ± 0.28 in group III. The mean apical leakage in all groups in different days was statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Endorez sealant showed highest apical leakage, whereas Realseal had minimum leakage. There was significant increase in leakage in all groups with the progression of time. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: With the advent of different root canal sealants, the success rate of the root canal-treated teeth can be confirmed.

Evaluation of Clinical Parameters in Implant Maintenance Phase for Prevention of Peri-implantitis.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are one of the common biological complications affecting implant success. The present study aimed to evaluate various clinical parameters during implant maintenance phase. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included patients undergoing implant maintenance phase for 1-year follow-up. The study consists of a total of forty individuals with age ranging from 35 to 65 years. They were further categorized into two subgroups on the basis of their history, i.e., Group 1: patients with no history of periodontitis before implant placement and Group 2: patients with a history of periodontitis before implant placement. Among the selected patients, a total of 98 implants were studied. All were individually evaluated for clinical parameters such as gingival index, pocket probing depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP). All the data obtained were tabulated and analyzed using statistical software SPSS version 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Quantitative analysis was done using t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients in Group 1 and Group 2 was 58.6 and 62.8 years, respectively, with not much gender difference. The mean plaque index for Group 1 was 0.17 ± 0.20, while for Group 2, it was 0.24 ± 0.14. The mean PPD and mean BOP for Group 1 came to be 2.60 ± 0.42 and 0.42 ± 0.15, respectively, whereas for Group 2, it was 4.08 ± 0.30 and 0.39 ± 0.48, respectively. Only PPD was found to be statistically significantly different between both the groups. Group 1 showed 2.0% peri-implantitis, whereas Group 2 showed 28% peri-implantitis. CONCLUSION: Due to increased prevalence of peri-implantitis cases with the increase in usage of implants, it becomes imperative to look up to the etiological factors and contributing factors so that the incidence of these can be minimized.