RESUMO
BACKGROUND: One of the essential properties of the root canal sealers is the adhesion to root canal dentin and their higher bond strength decreases the microleakage. The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of Different Intracanal medicaments on the push out bond strength of AH26 and MTA Fillapex sealers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 104 one-rooted extracted human teeth were divided into 4 (n=26) experimental groups. After the cleaning and shaping, the root canals were filled with Ca(OH)2, triantibiotic paste (TAP), Metapex or 2% chlorhexidine gel for two weeks. Then, intracanal medicaments were rinsed away and the samples in the sub-groups were obturated with gutta-percha and AH26 or MTA Fillapex sealers. After two weeks incubation, 2-mm-thick middle section of each root was then subjected to push-out testing. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and LSD test. RESULTS: With all the intracanal medicaments, the overall mean of bond strength values were significantly higher with AH26 compared to MTA Fillapex (p<0.05). With the use of MTA Fillapex the maximum and minimum means of bond strength values were recorded with CHX and Metapex and for AH26 were recorded with Ca(OH)2 and chlorhexidine, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The bond strengths of sealers to dentin are under the influence of pre-treatment with intracanal medicaments. Under the limitations of the present study, the effect of TAP on the bond strength of endodontic sealers was not negative. Key words:AH26, medicament, MTA Fillapex, push-out bond.
RESUMO
The most difficult maxillary teeth for endodontic treatment are the maxillary first molars (MFM) due to their complex root canal anatomy. The presence of two roots and C-shaped canals in MFMs has been reported in rare cases. The present case reports root canal treatment of MFM with two roots, where the palatal and buccal roots were joined together in a C-shaped configuration.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Root fracture is not an instant phenomenon but a result of gradual development of tiny craze lines in tooth structure. Recent studies have shown that canal instrumentation has the potential to cause dentinal cracks. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the formation of dentinal cracks caused by ProTaper rotary system to hand instrumentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This in vitro study was carried out using 57 mandible incisor teeth. The teeth were decoronated. The roots were then examined to exclude cracked samples. A standard model for PDL simulation was used. The teeth were randomly divided into two experimental and one control group (n=19). The teeth in the experimental groups were prepared using hand or ProTaper Universal rotary instrumentation. The teeth in the control group were left unprepared. The teeth were then sectioned horizontally 3 and 6 mm from the apex, and the number of various dentinal defects was recorded using a dental operating microscope. The differences between groups were analyzed with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The hand group demonstrated significantly more defects than the control group (P=0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the rotary compared to the control and hand groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between groups with regards to fracture (P>0.05). Other defects including internal, external and surface cracks were more frequent in the hand than in the control or rotary groups (P=0.02), but the difference was not significant between the rotary and control groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Canal preparation, whether hand or rotary, produces structural defects in dentin. The ProTaper rotary system when used according to the manufacturer's instructions, tends to produce fewer cracks and can be considered a safe preparation technique.
