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

Mean and standard deviation from gap measurements (μm2) for the experimental groups.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2836850&req=5

fig6: Mean and standard deviation from gap measurements (μm2) for the experimental groups.

Mentions: Interevaluators comparisons are demonstrated in Figures 3 and 4. The mean leakage and gap measurements for each group are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. The leakage data is presented in millimeter square (mm2); whereas, the gap measurements are presented in micrometer square (μm2). The average and standards deviation for leakage were 0.518 ± 1.059, 0.172 ± 0.223, and 0.158 ± 0.253, for the laser (group I), no root-end filling (group II), and MTA (group III) samples, respectively, (ANOVA P = .02). The controls demonstrated dye penetration through the entire length of the root canal. SEM analysis demonstrated measurable gaps in the laser (7831.7 ± 2329.2) and bur resection without root-end filling (7137.3 ± 1400.7) groups. A summary of the results is presented in the Table 1. The MTA group (group III) demonstrated statistically less microleakage when compared with the laser group (group I) and the best marginal adaptation, with no measurable gaps at the MTA-dentinal wall interface, when compared to the other two groups. There was no significant difference between the laser (group I) and the bur root-end resections (group II) for both the microleakage and gap measurements, when the root-end filling material (MTA) was not used.


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)

Mean and standard deviation from gap measurements (μm2) for the experimental groups.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig6: Mean and standard deviation from gap measurements (μm2) for the experimental groups.
Mentions: Interevaluators comparisons are demonstrated in Figures 3 and 4. The mean leakage and gap measurements for each group are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. The leakage data is presented in millimeter square (mm2); whereas, the gap measurements are presented in micrometer square (μm2). The average and standards deviation for leakage were 0.518 ± 1.059, 0.172 ± 0.223, and 0.158 ± 0.253, for the laser (group I), no root-end filling (group II), and MTA (group III) samples, respectively, (ANOVA P = .02). The controls demonstrated dye penetration through the entire length of the root canal. SEM analysis demonstrated measurable gaps in the laser (7831.7 ± 2329.2) and bur resection without root-end filling (7137.3 ± 1400.7) groups. A summary of the results is presented in the Table 1. The MTA group (group III) demonstrated statistically less microleakage when compared with the laser group (group I) and the best marginal adaptation, with no measurable gaps at the MTA-dentinal wall interface, when compared to the other two groups. There was no significant difference between the laser (group I) and the bur root-end resections (group II) for both the microleakage and gap measurements, when the root-end filling material (MTA) was not used.

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