Limits...
Evaluation of Root-End Resections Performed by Er, Cr: YSGG Laser with and without Placement of a Root-End Filling Material.

Sullivan J, Pileggi R, Varella C - Int J Dent (2009)

Bottom Line: Microleakage results were 0.518 +/- 1.059, 0.172 +/- 0.223, and 0.158 +/- 0.253, for the laser (I), no root-end filling (II), and MTA (III) samples, respectively, (ANOVA P = .02).Whereas, none was found in the MTA (ANOVA P = .002).There was no correlation between the size of the gaps and the degree of microleakage.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Endodontics, University of Florida, 1600 SW Archer Rd. Room no. D10-37, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.

ABSTRACT
Microleakage following root-end resections has a direct influence on the outcome of surgical endodontic procedures. This study compared the microleakage after root-end resections performed by the Er, Cr: YSGG laser or carbide burs with or without the placement of MTA, and evaluated the presence of microcracks and gaps at the interface of GP/MTA and the canal walls. Ninety single-rooted teeth were instrumented, obturated with GP and AH-Plus sealer, and divided into 3 experimental groups: (I) root-end resections were performed with the laser and G6 tips (parameters: 4.5 w, 30 pps, 20% water and 50% air); (II) Lindeman burs were used, without the placement of MTA; (III) the burs were used followed by root-end fillings with MTA, and one control (IV) of five unobturated roots resected with the burs. The samples were prepared for microleakage (n = 20) and SEM (n = 10) analysis. They were immersed in 1% methylene blue, decalcified, cleared, and evaluated for dye penetration (mm(2)) with the ImageJ software. Epoxy-resin replicas of the root-ends were analyzed by SEM for gaps (mum(2)) and microcracks. Microleakage results were 0.518 +/- 1.059, 0.172 +/- 0.223, and 0.158 +/- 0.253, for the laser (I), no root-end filling (II), and MTA (III) samples, respectively, (ANOVA P = .02). The laser (7831.7 +/- 2329.2) and no root-end filling (7137.3 +/- 1400.7) samples presented gaps. Whereas, none was found in the MTA (ANOVA P = .002). Microcracks were not observed. The MTA group demonstrated statistically less leakage and better adaptation to the canal walls when compared to the other groups. There was no correlation between the size of the gaps and the degree of microleakage.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Scanning Electron Microscope picture of the resected root-end (x60) showing the gap measurement between the gutta-percha and the root canal wall using the ImageJ software.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2836850&req=5

fig2: Scanning Electron Microscope picture of the resected root-end (x60) showing the gap measurement between the gutta-percha and the root canal wall using the ImageJ software.

Mentions: The scanning electron microscope (SEM) samples were prepared by creating epoxy resin replicas from polyvinylsiloxane impressions of the resected root-ends. The resin replica technique was used in this study to eliminate artifacts linked to SEM processing [15]. The ability of the resin replica to duplicate detail was tested by placing microscratches in the resected root-end of a natural tooth and then fabricating a resin replica. The resin replica and test specimen were placed on an SEM mounting stub next to one another, and the amount of detail in corresponding areas was compared under high-power magnification. All replicas were mounted on aluminum stubs adjacent to the natural specimen. This was done to ensure the accuracy of the resin replica process was consistently able to reproduce surface details present in corresponding areas of the natural tooth and if any detail was lost or any resin processing artifacts were present, then that natural tooth was used for comparison purposes. After allowing them to set for 24 hours, the resin replicas were kept overnight in a disecator under vacuum, then coated with platinum, and analyzed under the SEM (JOEL JSM 6400, JOEL Ltd. Peabody, MA) at x60 magnification. Photomicrographs were obtained for the evaluation of the gutta-percha/MTA adaptation at the root canal interface using the ImageJ software (Figure 2). The presence of microcrack formation was also recorded.


Evaluation of Root-End Resections Performed by Er, Cr: YSGG Laser with and without Placement of a Root-End Filling Material.

Sullivan J, Pileggi R, Varella C - Int J Dent (2009)

Scanning Electron Microscope picture of the resected root-end (x60) showing the gap measurement between the gutta-percha and the root canal wall using the ImageJ software.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2836850&req=5

fig2: Scanning Electron Microscope picture of the resected root-end (x60) showing the gap measurement between the gutta-percha and the root canal wall using the ImageJ software.
Mentions: The scanning electron microscope (SEM) samples were prepared by creating epoxy resin replicas from polyvinylsiloxane impressions of the resected root-ends. The resin replica technique was used in this study to eliminate artifacts linked to SEM processing [15]. The ability of the resin replica to duplicate detail was tested by placing microscratches in the resected root-end of a natural tooth and then fabricating a resin replica. The resin replica and test specimen were placed on an SEM mounting stub next to one another, and the amount of detail in corresponding areas was compared under high-power magnification. All replicas were mounted on aluminum stubs adjacent to the natural specimen. This was done to ensure the accuracy of the resin replica process was consistently able to reproduce surface details present in corresponding areas of the natural tooth and if any detail was lost or any resin processing artifacts were present, then that natural tooth was used for comparison purposes. After allowing them to set for 24 hours, the resin replicas were kept overnight in a disecator under vacuum, then coated with platinum, and analyzed under the SEM (JOEL JSM 6400, JOEL Ltd. Peabody, MA) at x60 magnification. Photomicrographs were obtained for the evaluation of the gutta-percha/MTA adaptation at the root canal interface using the ImageJ software (Figure 2). The presence of microcrack formation was also recorded.

Bottom Line: Microleakage results were 0.518 +/- 1.059, 0.172 +/- 0.223, and 0.158 +/- 0.253, for the laser (I), no root-end filling (II), and MTA (III) samples, respectively, (ANOVA P = .02).Whereas, none was found in the MTA (ANOVA P = .002).There was no correlation between the size of the gaps and the degree of microleakage.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Endodontics, University of Florida, 1600 SW Archer Rd. Room no. D10-37, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.

ABSTRACT
Microleakage following root-end resections has a direct influence on the outcome of surgical endodontic procedures. This study compared the microleakage after root-end resections performed by the Er, Cr: YSGG laser or carbide burs with or without the placement of MTA, and evaluated the presence of microcracks and gaps at the interface of GP/MTA and the canal walls. Ninety single-rooted teeth were instrumented, obturated with GP and AH-Plus sealer, and divided into 3 experimental groups: (I) root-end resections were performed with the laser and G6 tips (parameters: 4.5 w, 30 pps, 20% water and 50% air); (II) Lindeman burs were used, without the placement of MTA; (III) the burs were used followed by root-end fillings with MTA, and one control (IV) of five unobturated roots resected with the burs. The samples were prepared for microleakage (n = 20) and SEM (n = 10) analysis. They were immersed in 1% methylene blue, decalcified, cleared, and evaluated for dye penetration (mm(2)) with the ImageJ software. Epoxy-resin replicas of the root-ends were analyzed by SEM for gaps (mum(2)) and microcracks. Microleakage results were 0.518 +/- 1.059, 0.172 +/- 0.223, and 0.158 +/- 0.253, for the laser (I), no root-end filling (II), and MTA (III) samples, respectively, (ANOVA P = .02). The laser (7831.7 +/- 2329.2) and no root-end filling (7137.3 +/- 1400.7) samples presented gaps. Whereas, none was found in the MTA (ANOVA P = .002). Microcracks were not observed. The MTA group demonstrated statistically less leakage and better adaptation to the canal walls when compared to the other groups. There was no correlation between the size of the gaps and the degree of microleakage.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus