The efficacy of a cervical barrier in preventing microleakage of Enterococcus faecalis in endodontically treated teeth.

The clinical failure of coronal restorations can compromise the healthy periapical status of endodontically treated teeth. The purpose of the present ex vivo study was to assess the effectiveness of the cervical barrier in preventing bacterial microleakage in the eventual loss of the coronal restoration. Following removal of the smear layer and obturation to the cementoenamel junction using gutta-percha, 70 single-rooted mandibular premolars were randomly divided into five different groups: Group 1 received no additional treatment; Groups 2 and 3 had 2 mm and 3 mm of the obturation removed, respectively, followed by placement of a cervical barrier that was the same thickness as the obturation. In Group 4 (positive control), the root canals were filled only with gutta-percha, while in Group 5 (negative control), the root canals were completely impermeabilized following obturation. The filled root canals were incorporated into a split-chamber model system using Enterococcus faecalis as a microbial marker. The apices were suspended in the lower chambers. Leakage was determined daily for 60 days and evaluated for turbidity. According to Fisher's exact test, the cervical barrier in Groups 2 and 3 prevented the microleakage of E. faecalis into the root canals when compared with Groups 1 and 4. This result was similar to that for the completely sealed samples in Group 5 (p = 0.001).

Comparative analysis of accessory mesial canal identification in mandibular first molars by using four different diagnostic methods.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the present in vitro study was to compare 4 diagnostic methods to identify accessory mesial canals (AMCs) in lower first molars. METHODS: Forty-four lower first molars were selected for assessment with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), digital radiography (DR), clinical inspection (CI), and dental operating microscope (DOM). Initially, axial images were obtained by using CBCT, and radiographs were taken in ortho, mesial, and distal angulations. The images were assessed by 2 independent groups of examiners, and all of the results obtained remained undisclosed until the end of the experiment. Subsequently, root canal access was prepared, and the mesial subpulpal groove was located by using sharp endodontic explorers. The roots were examined with DOM, and all identified canals were negotiated and instrumented by using a ProTaper Rotary System. The results were tabulated and statistically analyzed by nonparametric McNemar tests. RESULTS: Twelve AMCs (27.0%) were identified by CBCT, and 58.0% were instrumented. No AMCs were visualized in any DR examined. Fifteen potential AMCs (34%) were identified by CI, but only 47.0% were confirmed after instrumentation. Thirteen AMCs (30.0%) were identified by DOM, and 84.0% could be negotiated and instrumented. CONCLUSIONS: There were statistically significant differences between the 4 types of assessments for AMC identification. There was good agreement between DOM and CBCT, whereas DR and CI were not as precise as either of the other 2 diagnostic methods.