Effect of acid etching of retropreparation cavities on seal of retrofill materials.
- Author:
Ke Xian XIE
1
;
Yuan Gao LI
1
;
Ping ZHANG
1
;
Xiao WANG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Stomatology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Aluminum Compounds;
Calcium Compounds;
Dental Leakage;
Drug Combinations;
Oxides;
Random Allocation;
Root Canal Filling Materials;
Root Canal Therapy;
Silicates;
Tooth Root
- From:
Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences)
2018;50(1):69-72
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of acid etching of retropreps on seal of different retrofill materials.
METHODS:In the study, 80 freshly extracted lower molar teeth were used. They were examined under 3.5× magnifying glass to rull out fractures. They were cleaned and stored in distilled water before use. The distal roots were sectioned off and underwent root canal treatment. Rotary nickel-titanium instruments were used during instrumentation and the roots were obturated using lateral condensation technique. The apical portion (3 mm in length) was removed with a fine grit diamond bur, the root tip was retroprepared with a ultrasonic tip (3 mm in depth). The retroprepared roots were randomly assigned to 4 groups and retrofilled with amalgam, intermediate restorative material (IRM), iRoot BP Plus and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). The groups were further divided into subgroups according to treatment of the root end cavity (etch and non-etch). The root tips were covered with alginate impression material and were left to set in PBS solution for a week and stained with methylene blue for a week. The roots were removed from the dye solution, thoroughly rinsed and dried, split in halves along the long axis with a diamond disk and observed under a stereoscope. The linear dye leakage was measured and analyzed. One way ANOVA and Tamhane's T2 method were used to analyze the data. The significance level was set at 0.05.
RESULTS:The dye leakage results (mean±standard deviation) according to the treatment groups were: amalgam etch (2.80±0.72) mm, amalgam non-etch (2.07±0.86) mm, IRM etch (1.54±0.19) mm, IRM non-etch (1.12±0.28) mm , iRoot BP Plus etch (0.20±0.20) mm, iRoot BP Plus non-etch (0.11±0.08) mm, MTA etch (0.19±0.19) mm, and MTA non-etch (0.17±0.14) mm. One way ANOVA showed significant differences between the groups. Comparison between the groups using Tamhane's T2 method showed roots retrofilled with iRoot BP Plus and MTA had significant less leakage than those retrofilled with amalgam and IRM (P<0.05); There was no significant difference in terms of leakage between iRoot BP Plus and MTA; Acid etching increased leakage of IRM but did not affect MTA, iRoot BP Plus or amalgam retrofillings.
CONCLUSION:Acid etching is not shown to benefit apical sealing of retrofill materials.
