Search

Background: This study aimed to compare the marginal adaptation of a single customized gutta percha cone with calcium silicate-based sealer versus mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine apical plugs in simulated immature permanent teeth., Methods: Thirty-nine extracted human maxillary anterior teeth were selected, prepared to simulate immature permanent teeth with an apical diameter 1.1 mm, placed in moist foam and divided into three groups. Group 1: Obturation with a single customized gutta percha cone and calcium silicate sealer. Group 2: MTA apical plug. Group 3: Biodentine apical plug. After incubation, teeth were horizontally sectioned at 1 mm and 3 mm from the apex and marginal adaptation was evaluated using scanning electron microscope (SEM)., Results: Biodentine showed the least mean gap size at both 1 and 3 mm from the apex with no statistically significant differences compared to MTA (p > 0.05). The single customized cone with calcium silicate based sealer showed the greatest mean gap size at both 1 and 3 mm from the apex with a statistically significant difference compared to the other groups (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Biodentine and MTA apical plugs provide a significantly better marginal adaptation to the dentinal walls than a single customized gutta percha cone with calcium silicate based sealer in simulated immature permanent teeth., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Apical surgery with standard retrograde maneuvers may be challenging in certain cases. Simplifying apical surgery to reduce operating time and streamline retrograde manipulation is an emerging need in clinical endodontics., Aim of the Study: The aim of the study was to compare the bacterial sealing ability of a calcium silicate-based sealer with the single cone technique combined with root end resection only, and calcium silicate-based sealer as a retrograde filling versus MTA retrofilling, and to analyze bacterial viability using confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM)., Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 50 extracted human maxillary incisor teeth were instrumented and randomly divided into five groups: three experimental groups, a positive control group, and a negative control group (n = 10/group). In the experimental groups, the roots were obturated using the single cone technique (SCT) and a calcium silicate-based sealer. In group 1, the roots were resected 3 mm from the apex with no further retrograde preparation or filling. In groups 2 and 3, the roots were resected, retroprepared, and retrofilled with either a calcium silicate-based sealer or MTA, respectively. Group 4 (positive control) was filled with a single gutta-percha cone without any sealer. In group 5 (negative control), the canals were left empty, and the roots were sealed with wax and nail varnish. A bacterial leakage model using Enterococcus faecalis was employed to assess the sealing ability over a 30-day period, checking for turbidity and analyzing colony forming units (CFUs) per milliliter. Five specimens from each group were examined using CLSM for bacterial viability. Data for the bacterial sealing ability were statistically analyzed using chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests., Results: The three experimental groups did not show significant differences in terms of bacterial leakage, or bacterial counts (CFUs) (P > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed when comparing the experimental groups to the positive control group. Notably, the calcium silicate-based sealer, when used as a retrofilling, yielded the best sealing ability. CLSM imaging revealed viable bacterial penetration in all the positive control group specimens while for the experimental groups, dead bacteria was the prominent feature seen., Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it could be concluded that the bacterial sealing ability of calcium silicate-based sealer with the single cone technique combined with root end resection only and calcium silicate-based sealer as a retrograde filling were comparable with MTA retrofilling during endodontic surgical procedures., (© 2024. The Author(s).)