Search

Objective(s): The purpose of the present study was the immunohistochemical evaluation of VEGF and VII factors in dog's teeth pulp revascularized with MTA and propolis. Materials and Methods: 144 mature and immature two rooted dog's premolar canals were selected. Pulp necrosis and infection were established after 2 weeks and the disinfection of the canals was done with copious NaOCl irrigation and triantibiotic mixture (ciprofloxacin, metronidazole, and minocycline) for 3 weeks. Subsequently, the blood clot was evoked in the canal by periapical tissue irritation with a k-file. The samples were randomly divided into 6 experimental groups: propolis (groups 1, 2), MTA (groups 3, 4), and parafilm (groups 5, 6) in immature and mature teeth. The animals were sacrificed and samples were prepared for immunohistochemical evaluation of VEGF and the VIII factor. Results: Tissue regeneration was seen in 64.5% of MTA, 38% of propolis, and 0% of parafilm group samples. Expression of VEGF and VIII factor in the propolis group was more than the MTA group and it showed a reduction after 3 months in comparison to 1 month. VEGF and VIII factor were seen in stromal cells in addition to endothelial vessel cells. Overall, expression of angiogenic factors was more in the open apex teeth compared to close apex ones. Conclusion: According to the results of this study, propolis can induce the expression of VEGF and VIII factor in infected mature and immature dog's teeth and is a suitable biomaterial for the revascularization technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: During root canal preparation, apical extrusion of debris can cause inflammation, flare-ups, and delayed healing. Therefore, instrumentation techniques that cause the least extrusion of debris are desirable. This study aimed to compare apical extrusion of debris by five single-file, full-sequence rotary and reciprocating systems. Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty human mandibular premolars with similar root lengths, apical diameters, and canal curvatures were selected and randomly assigned to six groups (n=20): Reciproc R25 (25, 0.08), WaveOne Primary (25, 0.08), OneShape (25, 0.06), F360 (25, 0.04), Neoniti A1 (25, 0.08), and ProTaper Universal. Instrumentation of the root canals was performed in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. Each tooth's debris was collected in a pre-weighed vial. After drying the debris in an incubator, the mass was measured three times consecutively; the mean was then calculated. The preparation time by each system was also measured. For data analysis, one-way ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc test were used. Results: The mean masses (±standard deviation) of the apical debris were as follows: 2.071±1.38mg (ProTaper Universal), 1.702±1.306mg (Neoniti A1), 1.295±0.839mg (OneShape), 1.109±0.676mg (WaveOne), 0.976±0.478mg (Reciproc) and 0.797±0.531mg (F360). Compared to ProTaper Universal, F360 generated significantly less debris (P=0.02). The ProTaper system required the longest preparation time (mean=88.6 seconds); the Reciproc (P=0.008), OneShape (P=0.006), and F360 (P=0.001) required significantly less time (P<0.05). Conclusions: All instruments caused extrusion of debris through the apex. The F360 produced significantly less debris than did the ProTaper Universal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This case report describes apexogenesis treatment of three molar teeth of an 8-year-old boy using three different pulpotomy agents. Methods: Pulpotomy was performed on decayed immature molar teeth with established irreversible pulpitis and the remaining pulp was capped with either zinc oxide eugenol, ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate or calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement. Teeth were restored with stainless steel crowns. Results: Eighteen months clinical and radiographic follow-up revealed successful preservation of pulpal vitality with continued root development in all treated teeth. Conclusion: Based on this case report, CEM cement may be an alternative option for pulpotomy treatment of immature permanent molars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: Since there is a few studies about the reasons of endodontic treatment in Iran, it is necessary to evaluate factors and patients informational rate in all geographic regions for prevention and suitable treatment. So we decide to evaluate the reasons of endodontic treatment in patients who referred to endodontic group. Materials and methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out on 1,150 cases of Department of Endodontic in Babol dental school for each case, information was collected in a questionnaire including clinical and radiographic and systemic status of patients. Data were analyzed by statistical methods. Results: Out of 1150, 858 cases were perfect which were analyzed. Of the 858 treated teeth, 328 (36.8%) were males and 530 (59.6%) were females. The reasons for endodontic treatment were carries (82.2%), retreatment (7.2%), endo for prostheses (5.6%), restorative reasons (2.1%), trauma (2.8%) and periodontal disease (0.1%). Endodontic treatment was done in first and second and third molars in 42.9%, 16.2%, and 2%. There are in radiographic view 60.6% normal appearance, 18.4% periapical radiolucency, 15.4% widening of PDL and 0% root fracture. Systemic disease was 14.4% in patients with root canal therapy (RCT). Pain with cold, warm and endo for crown was 51.5%, 28.7%, and 1.4%, respectively. Conclusion: The most common reason for attending to dental school was pain. The most common and uncommon reasons for RCT were dental carries and periodontal disease. The most common and uncommon teeth were first and third molar. Pain with cold and endo for crown were the most common and uncommon findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: During root canal preparation, apical extrusion of debris can cause inflammation, flare-ups, and delayed healing. Therefore, instrumentation techniques that cause the least extrusion of debris are desirable. This study aimed to compare apical extrusion of debris by five single-file, full-sequence rotary and reciprocating systems., Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty human mandibular premolars with similar root lengths, apical diameters, and canal curvatures were selected and randomly assigned to six groups (n=20): Reciproc R25 (25, 0.08), WaveOne Primary (25, 0.08), OneShape (25, 0.06), F360 (25, 0.04), Neoniti A1 (25, 0.08), and ProTaper Universal. Instrumentation of the root canals was performed in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. Each tooth's debris was collected in a pre-weighed vial. After drying the debris in an incubator, the mass was measured three times consecutively; the mean was then calculated. The preparation time by each system was also measured. For data analysis, one-way ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc test were used., Results: The mean masses (±standard deviation) of the apical debris were as follows: 2.071±1.38mg (ProTaper Universal), 1.702±1.306mg (Neoniti A1), 1.295±0.839mg (OneShape), 1.109±0.676mg (WaveOne), 0.976±0.478mg (Reciproc) and 0.797±0.531mg (F360). Compared to ProTaper Universal, F360 generated significantly less debris (P=0.02). The ProTaper system required the longest preparation time (mean=88.6 seconds); the Reciproc (P=0.008), OneShape (P=0.006), and F360 (P=0.001) required significantly less time (P<0.05)., Conclusions: All instruments caused extrusion of debris through the apex. The F360 produced significantly less debris than did the ProTaper Universal.