Cemental tear: Literature review, proposed classification and recommendations for treatment.

Cemental tears are an important condition of relevance to Endodontics but are often overlooked. A cemental tear is the partial or complete detachment of the cementum from the cemento-dentinal junction or along the incremental line within the body of cementum. The limited attention received is most likely due to the limited awareness amongst dental professionals and challenges in accurately diagnosing them, resulting in misdiagnosis and erroneous treatment. The aim of this review is to describe the: (i) epidemiology and predisposing factors; (ii) clinical, radiographic and histological features and (iii) the clinical management and treatment outcomes of cemental tear. The review included 37 articles published in English that comprised eight observational studies and 29 case reports. The prevalence of cemental tears was reported to be lower than 2%; whilst the incidence remains unknown. Internal factors due to the inherent structural weakness of cementum and its interface with the dentine, and external factors that are associated with stress have been proposed as the two mechanisms responsible for the development and propagation of cemental tears. Predisposing factors that have been implicated were tooth type, gender, age, previous root canal treatment, history of dental trauma, occlusal trauma and excessive occlusal force; however, evidence is limited. Common clinical and radiographic manifestations of cemental tears resemble the presentations of primary endodontic diseases, primary periodontal diseases and combined endodontic-periodontal lesions. Clinical management tended to focus on complete removal of the torn fragments and periodontal treatment, often combined with regenerative treatment. In this article, a new classification for cemental tears is developed that consists of classes 0 to 6 and stages A, B, C and D based on the: (i) location and accessibility of the torn cemental fragment; (ii) the pattern and extension of the associated bony defect in relation to the root length and (iii) the number of root surface/s affected by the cemental tear/s and the associated bony defect. Recommendations for treatment strategies are also provided and linked to the classification to aid in streamlining the process of treatment decision making.

Effect of Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation, Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, and Photon-Induced Photoacoustic Streaming against Enterococcus faecalis Biofilms in the Apical Third of Root Canals.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the antibacterial effectiveness of passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), Er,Cr:YSGG laser (WTL), and photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS) using an Er:YAG laser against Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in the apical third of root canals. METHODS: Root canals of 70 single-rooted human teeth were instrumented and infected with E. faecalis for 3 weeks to form biofilms. The samples were randomly divided into five groups as follows: (i) PUI + 3% NaOCl (n = 16); (ii) Er,Cr:YSGG laser (n = 16); (iii) PIPS + 3% NaOCl (n = 16); (iv) positive control group (n = 10); and (v) negative control group (n = 10). The bacterial content in the root canal was sampled using (a) the paper-point sampling method before (S1) and after (S2) treatment and (b) pulverising the apical 5 mm of the root. The number of bacteria recovered from each group was counted as colony-forming units (CFUs). The amount of reduction between the groups was compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test and post-test Dunn's multiple comparisons tests. The significance level was set at 5% (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The samples from the paper-point sampling method showed that the amount of bacteria before (S1) and after treatment (S2) was significantly different between PIPS and WTL, as well as between the PUI and WTL groups. In contrast, no significant difference was found between the PIPS and PUI groups. From the pulverised samples, the results indicated no significant difference among all experimental groups in the amount of bacterial reduction in the apical 5 mm of the root. CONCLUSIONS: PUI and PIPS showed a significantly greater reduction in bacterial content within the main root canal compared with the WTL. There was no difference among all experimental groups in the apical third of the root.

Treatment Outcome of Repaired Root Perforation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to review systematically the reported treatment outcome of repaired root perforation and to identify any preoperative factors that may influence the outcome of such repair. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted by using 4 electronic databases, as well as manual search of cited references, to identify reports related to root perforation. Clinical studies published from 1950 to mid-2014 that evaluated the outcome of repaired root perforations were identified. Studies were further screened for similar characteristics for pooling of data for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included for systematic review and 12 suitable for meta-analysis. An overall pooled success rate of 72.5% (confidence interval, 61.9%-81.0%) was estimated for nonsurgical repair of root perforations. The use of mineral trioxide aggregate appeared to enhance the success rate to 80.9% (confidence interval, 67.1%-89.8%), but the difference was not statistically significant. The presence of pre-existing radiolucency adjacent to the perforation site fared a lower chance of success after repair (P < .05). Maxillary teeth demonstrated a significantly higher success rate compared with their mandibular counterpart (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it may be concluded that nonsurgical repair of root perforation results in a success rate of more than 70%. Teeth in the maxillary arch and absence of preoperative radiolucency adjacent to the perforation are favorable preoperative factors for healing after perforation repair. In view of the relatively high rate of clinical success, nonsurgical repair may be considered as the preferred treatment to handle this complication that arises during root canal therapy.

Mandibular first premolar with four canals.

A case of endodontic treatment of a mandibular first premolar exhibiting a total of four distinct root canals and four apical foramina is described. This occurrence in mandibular first premolar has rarely been reported in the endodontic literature. Endodontic treatment that considers the anatomic variation of root canal morphology is important to ensure a favorable healing outcome, and its identification could be enhanced by careful examination using a dental operating microscope. Obturation of root canals using a warm vertical compaction technique with a highly-radiopaque root canal sealer, such as AH Plus, after careful ultrasonic activated irrigation with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid might allow the flow of sealer into the narrowed but unprepared part of the canal. This offers valuable adjuncts for the successful negotiation of calcified main canals, thereby facilitating optimum chemo-mechanical debridement of the root canal system.

Suitability of time estimates for survival analysis of endodontic treatment.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine the most suitable estimates of the event date for Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival analysis for the assessment of endodontic treatment outcomes. Survival probability computed using the Weibull accelerated failure time (WAFT) models based on interval-censored data was used for comparison. METHODS: A sample of root canal-treated teeth was included for survival analysis using the K-M and WAFT models. Treatment outcomes were categorized for the presence or absence of periapical healing and tooth survival. For the K-M analysis, the following time estimates between a visit when failure was diagnosed and the preceding visit were tested: the one-quarter point (T1), the half-way point (T2), the three-quarter point (T3), the date of diagnosis (T4), and the geometric mean (T5). RESULTS: The survival curve plotted from T2 consistently showed the least discrepancies in trend when compared against the WAFT curve. Those curves generated from T1 to T5 were significantly different from each other for periapical healing but not for tooth survival. CONCLUSIONS: T2 is the most reliable date for K-M analysis for measuring endodontic outcomes, especially when periapical healing is concerned. T4 would be a reasonable estimate for assessing tooth survival. Further research aiming at appropriate statistical exercise with simulations followed by proper goodness of fit tests should be considered.