Dental and Medical Problems

Dent. Med. Probl.
Index Copernicus (ICV 2018) – 113.05
MNiSW – 20
Average rejection rate – 70.86%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download original text (EN)

Dental and Medical Problems

2020, vol. 57, nr 2, April-June, p. 165–169

doi: 10.17219/dmp/116743

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Strengthening effect of bioceramic cement when used to repair simulated internal resorption cavities in endodontically treated teeth

Wytrzymałość zębów leczonych endodontycznie po wypełnieniu symulowanych ubytków resorpcji wewnętrznej cementem bioceramicznym

Wafaa Abdelbaky Khalil1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Faisal Alghamdi2,A,B,C,D,E,F, Esraa Aljahdali3,B,C,F

1 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

2 Department of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

3 Intern, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Background. The reinforcement of teeth with internal root resorption is essential to prevent their fracture.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to assess the fracture resistance of the premolar teeth with internal root resorption cavities (IRCs), repaired with glass-ionomer cement (GIC), gutta-percha (GP) or EndoSequence® Root Repair MaterialTM (RRM).
Material and Methods. Forty lower premolars, instrumented to size 50, were used. Ten teeth were assigned to the control group, which received the full obturation of the root canals. In the remaining 30, IRCs were prepared with Gates–Glidden burs. The apical 8 mm was obturated to the level of IRC using the single-cone technique. Then, the teeth were divided into 3 groups according to the material used for repairing the cavities (n = 10): GIC; GP; and RRM. The canals were filled with respective materials and backfilled with GP. All of the specimens were scanned at the level of IRC with a micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) system, and the volume of the IRCs and the percentages of voids in the filling materials were measured. The specimens were subjected to fracture testing. The force recorded at the time of fracture was analyzed with the Kruskal–Wallis test and the independent t-test.
Results. The control group showed a significantly higher mean value of fracture resistance as compared to the groups with IRCs (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found between GIC and RRM, whereas the GP group had a significantly lower fracture resistance than other tested IRC groups (p < 0.05). The percentage of voids was significantly higher in the GIC group as compared to the GP and RRM groups (p < 0.05).
Conclusion. EndoSequence Root Repair Material provides more strength to the teeth than the GP/sealer technique when both are used to fill a resorption cavity. The fracture resistance of the teeth filled with RRM was close to that obtained with GIC.

Key words

glass-ionomer cement, EndoSequence Root Repair Material, root resorption, gutta-percha, tooth fracture

Słowa kluczowe

cement szkło-jonomerowy, materiał do naprawy korzenia zęba EndoSequence, resorpcja korzenia zęba, gutaperka, złamanie zęba

References (22)

  1. Patel S, Ford TP. Is the resorption external or internal? Dent Update. 2007;34(4):218–220.
  2. Wedenberg C, Lindskog S. Experimental internal resorption in monkey teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1985;1(6):221–227.
  3. Patel S, Ricucci D, Durak C, Tay F. Internal root resorption: A review. J Endod. 2010;36(7):1107–1121.
  4. Gabor C, Tam E, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Prevalence of internal inflammatory root resorption. J Endod. 2012;38(1):24–27.
  5. Silveira FF, Nunes E, Soares JA, Ferreira CL, Rotstein I. Double ‘pink tooth’ associated with extensive internal root resorption after orthodontic treatment: A case report. Dent Traumatol. 2009;25(3):e43–e47.
  6. Patel MH, Yagnik KN, Patel NK, Bhavsar BA. Obturating the pink tooth: An in vitro comparative evaluation of different materials. Endodontology. 2018;30(2):119–124.
  7. Teixeira FB, Teixeira ECN, Thompson JY, Trope M. Fracture resistance of roots endodontically treated with a new resin filling material. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135(5):646–652.
  8. Gencoglu N, Yildirim T, Garip Y, Karagenc B, Yilmaz H. Effectiveness of different gutta-percha techniques when filling experimental internal resorptive cavities. Int Endod J. 2008;41(10):836–842.
  9. De Bruyne MA, De Moor RJ. The use of glass ionomer cements in both conventional and surgical endodontics. Int Endod J. 2004;37(2):91–104.
  10. Aktemur Türker S, Uzunoğlu E, Deniz Sungur D, Tek V. Fracture resistance of teeth with simulated perforating internal resorption cavities repaired with different calcium silicate-based cements and backfilling materials. J Endod. 2018;44(5):860–863.
  11. Sultana N, Singh M, Nawal RR, et al. Evaluation of biocompatibi­lity and osteogenic potential of tricalcium silicate-based cements using human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. J Endod. 2018;44(3):446–451.
  12. Khalil WA, Abunasef SK. Can mineral trioxide aggregate and nanoparticulate EndoSequence Root Repair Material produce injurious effects to rat subcutaneous tissues? J Endod. 2015;41(7):1151–1156.
  13. Chen S, Öhman C, Jefferies SR, Gray H, Xia W, Engqvist H. Compressive fatigue limit of four types of dental restorative materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;61:283–289.
  14. Topçuoğlu HS, Tuncay Ö, Karataş E, Arslan H, Yeter K. In vitro fracture resistance of roots obturated with epoxy resin-based, mine­ral trioxide aggregate-based, and bioceramic root canal sealers. J Endod. 2013;39(12):1630–1633.
  15. Alsubait SA. Effect of sodium hypochlorite on push-out bond strength of four calcium silicate-based endodontic materials when used for repairing perforations on human dentin: An in vitro evaluation. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017;18(4):289–294.
  16. Chen I, Karabucak B, Wang C, et al. Healing after root-end microsurgery by using mineral trioxide aggregate and a new calcium silicate-based bioceramic material as root-end filling materials in dogs. J Endod. 2015;41(3):389–399.
  17. Soares CJ, Gava Pizi EC, Fonseca RB, Marcondes Martins LR. Influence of root embedment material and periodontal ligament simulation on fracture resistance tests. Braz Oral Res. 2005;19(1):11–16.
  18. Ulusoy ÖI, Paltun YN. Fracture resistance of roots with simulated internal resorption defects and obturated using different hybrid techniques. J Dent Sci. 2017;12(2):121–125.
  19. Keleş A, Alcin H, Kamalak A, Versiani MA. Micro-CT evaluation of root filling quality in oval-shaped canals. Int Endod J. 2014;47(12):1177–1184.
  20. Guo YJ, Du TF, Li HB, et al. Physical properties and hydration beha­vior of a fast-setting bioceramic endodontic material. BMC Oral Health. 2016;16:23.
  21. Han L, Okiji T. Bioactivity evaluation of three calcium silicate-based endodontic materials. Int Endod J. 2013;46(9):808–814.
  22. Lalh MS, Titley K, Torneck CD, Friedman S. The shear bond strength of glass ionomer cement sealers to bovine dentine conditioned with common endodontic irrigants. Int Endod J. 1999;32(6):430–435.