Abstract
BackgroundThe present study compares the apical microleakage of three different root-end filling materials in which the retrograde cavity is prepared by two different burs.MethodsEighty extracted single rooted maxillary and mandibular premolars were taken. Root canal treatment was completed. Apical 3 mm of all the teeth were resected with diamond disk. The tooth were divided into four groups with two subgroups for each group containing 10 tooth (N = 10) as: Group IA (Negative Control and IB (Positive Control); Group IIA and IIB: Prepared with round carbide bur and round diamond bur respectively, filled with GIC; Group IIIA and IIIB: Prepared with round carbide bur and round diamond bur respectively, filled with MTA; Group IVA and IVB: Prepared with round carbide bur and round diamond bur, filled with Biodentine. After applying two coats of nail varnish leaving apical 3 mm (except for negative control group) all teeth were immersed in 2% methylene blue for 3 days and again in 65% nitric acid for next 3 days for extraction of dye. The obtained solution was then transferred to eppendorf tube and centrifuged in microcentrifuges at 14,000 revolution per minutes (RPM) for 5 min. Optical density or absorbance of the supernatant solution was measured with UV spectrophotometer at 550 nm.ResultsThe absorbance of the supernatant solution after dye extraction is decreasing in the order of positive control> GIC > MTA > Biodentine> negative control group. The significant difference was observed between GIC and MTA (p = 0.0001) and GIC and Biodentine (p = 0.0001) with two different burs but statistically non-significant difference was observed between MTA and Biodentine with Carbide bur (p = 0.127) and Diamond bur (p = 0.496) respectively.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that Biodentine and MTA showed less microleakage as compared to GIC. There is no significant difference between mean microleakage of MTA and Biodentine. However, the mean OD of the Biodentine was least of all evaluated materials. Preparation of the root-end using round carbide bur as well as round diamond burs showed comparable microleakage for all three filling materials.
Highlights
The present study compares the apical microleakage of three different root-end filling materials in which the retrograde cavity is prepared by two different burs
The consent of the participant for the use of extracted tooth is not necessary according to the Institutional Review Committee which comes under National regulation (Nepal)
The significant difference was observed in between Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) (p = 0.0001) as well as GIC and Biodentine (p = 0.0001) with two different burs but statistically non-significant difference was observed between MTA and Biodentine with Carbide bur (p = 0.127) and Diamond bur (p = 0.496) respectively
Summary
The present study compares the apical microleakage of three different root-end filling materials in which the retrograde cavity is prepared by two different burs. Conventional Root Canal Treatment (RCT) is the highly predictable treatment option with the aim of elimination and future exclusion of all the microorganisms from the root canal system [1]. Despite meticulous canal cleaning, shaping, disinfection, and obturation, endodontic treatment might still fail. This unsuccessful result may related to bacterial persistence in the apical canal in areas unaffected by treatment procedures [3]. Procedural errors during instrumentation like ledges, perforations and instrument breakage, canal calcifications and anatomic anomalies can negatively affect the efficient performance of cleaning and shaping of the root canal system and lead to treatment failure [4, 5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
