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.

Risk Assessment in Long-term Survival Rates of Dental Implants: A Prospective Clinical Study.

AIM: The present study was done to analyze the risk factors associated with dental implants in its survival rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was conducted on 208 patients with 425 dental implants placed. Patients were divided into four groups: group I (diabetes), group II (periodontitis), group III (smoking), and group IV (bruxism). All patients were followed for 8 to 10 years for the survival rates. RESULTS: Out of 425 dental implants, 145 were inserted in 72 males and 280 in 136 females. The difference was significant (p = 0.01). Group I had 16 males and 36 females, group II had 20 males and 32 females, group III had 28 males and 24 females, and group IV had 8 males and 44 females. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Out of 425 implants, 90 (21.17%) had failures: 24 dental implants (29%) in group I, 22 dental implants (15.2%) group II, 34 dental implants (27%) in group III, and 10 dental implants (13%) in group IV showed failure. The difference was significant (p < 0.05). Success rate was 70.7% in group I, 83.3% in group II, 80.9% in group III, and 86.3% in group IV. The difference was nonsignificant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Diabetes, periodontitis, bruxism, and smoking are among various causative factors which affect the survival rate of dental implants. These are risk factors leading to implant failures. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Diabetes, periodontitis, bruxism, and smoking are among various causative factors which affect the survival rate of dental implants.