Evaluation of Root-End Preparation with Two Different Endodontic Microsurgery Ultrasonic Tips

Overview

Journal Biomedicines

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2020 Oct 1

PMID 32998221

Citations 11

Authors

Paulo J Palma

Joana A Marques

Margarida Casau

Andre Santos

Francisco Caramelo

Rui I Falacho

Joao Miguel Santos

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare root-end preparation performed with two different ultrasonic tips-CVDentus and NSK-and respective time requirements. After root-end resection, 32 teeth were randomly divided in two groups, according to the ultrasonic tip used for root-end preparation. Preparation time was recorded. Photomicrographs were taken to assess the following parameters: root surface microcracking, marginal integrity and presence of debris. One ultrasonic tip from each group was analyzed through scanning electron microscopy before and after root-end preparation. The significance level was set at α = 0.05. Incidence of microcracks in both groups was 12.5%. Solely intracanal microcracking was found, consistently positioned within the widest side of the remaining dentine. No statistically significant differences were verified between both experimental groups regarding marginal integrity ( = 0.102) and preparation time ( = 0.780), whereas statistical differences ( = 0.003) were found concerning the presence of debris (the minimum registered score was mostly verified in CVDentus group). NSK tips showed major morphological changes, with extensive surface wear and noticeable loss of particles, which was not verified on CVDentus tips. Our findings suggest significant differences regarding root-end preparation walls quality, with CVDentus tips showing better results. Concerning microcracking, as well as preparation time and marginal integrity, both ultrasonic tips showed similar results. Qualitative analysis exposed NSK tips major morphological changes and wear after use, which was not verified on CVDentus tips.

Citing Articles

Metronidazole-laden silk fibroin methacrylated scaffolds for managing periapical lesions.

Silverberg A, Cardoso L, de Carvalho A, Dos Reis-Prado A, Fenno J, Dal-Fabbro R Odontology. 2024; .

PMID: 39523223 DOI: 10.1007/s10266-024-01023-y.

Evaluation of Dentinal Microcracks following Diode Laser- and Ultrasonic-Activated Removal of Bioceramic Material during Root Canal Retreatment.

Barakat R, Almohareb R, Alsayyar A, Almalki F, Alharbi H Scanning. 2022; 2022:6319743.

PMID: 36570434 PMC: 9705085. DOI: 10.1155/2022/6319743.

Guided Endodontics: Static vs. Dynamic Computer-Aided Techniques-A Literature Review.

Ribeiro D, Reis E, Marques J, Falacho R, Palma P J Pers Med. 2022; 12(9).

PMID: 36143301 PMC: 9501573. DOI: 10.3390/jpm12091516.

Intentional Replantation as a Starting Approach for a Multidisciplinary Treatment of a Mandibular Second Molar: A Case Report.

Santos J, Marques J, Esteves M, Sousa V, Palma P, Matos S J Clin Med. 2022; 11(17).

PMID: 36079036 PMC: 9457313. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11175111.

Models for Oral Biology Research.

Capela E Silva F, Lamy E, Castelo P Biomedicines. 2022; 10(5).

PMID: 35625688 PMC: 9138227. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10050952.

References

Layton C, Marshall J, Morgan L, Baumgartner J . Evaluation of cracks associated with ultrasonic root-end preparation. J Endod. 1996; 22(4):157-60. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80091-4. View

Berbert F, de Faria-Junior N, Tanomaru-Filho M, Guerreiro-Tanomaru J, Bonetti-Filho I, de Toledo Leonardo R . An in vitro evaluation of apicoectomies and retropreparations using different methods. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 110(4):e57-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.03.004. View

Bernardes R, de Moraes I, Garcia R, Bernardineli N, Baldi J, Victorino F . Evaluation of apical cavity preparation with a new type of ultrasonic diamond tip. J Endod. 2007; 33(4):484-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.12.019. View

de Lange J, Putters T, Baas E, van Ingen J . Ultrasonic root-end preparation in apical surgery: a prospective randomized study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 104(6):841-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.06.023. View

Bernardes R, de Souza Junior J, Duarte M, de Moraes I, Bramante C . Ultrasonic chemical vapor deposition-coated tip versus high- and low-speed carbide burs for apicoectomy: time required for resection and scanning electron microscopy analysis of the root-end surfaces. J Endod. 2009; 35(2):265-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.009. View

Taha N, Aboyounes F, Tamimi Z . Root-end microsurgery using a premixed tricalcium silicate putty as root-end filling material: a prospective study. Clin Oral Investig. 2020; 25(1):311-317. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03365-7. View

De-Deus G, Cavalcante D, Belladonna F, Carvalhal J, Souza E, Lopes R . Root dentinal microcracks: a post-extraction experimental phenomenon?. Int Endod J. 2018; 52(6):857-865. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13058. View

Torabinejad M, Parirokh M, Dummer P . Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: an updated overview - part II: other clinical applications and complications. Int Endod J. 2017; 51(3):284-317. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12843. View

Tete G, Cappare P, Gherlone E . New Application of Osteogenic Differentiation from HiPS Stem Cells for Evaluating the Osteogenic Potential of Nanomaterials in Dentistry. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(6). PMC: 7142891. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17061947. View

10.

Santos J, Pereira S, Sequeira D, Messias A, Martins J, Cunha H . Biocompatibility of a bioceramic silicone-based sealer in subcutaneous tissue. J Oral Sci. 2019; 61(1):171-177. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.18-0145. View

11.

Navarre S, Steiman H . Root-end fracture during retropreparation: a comparison between zirconium nitride-coated and stainless steel microsurgical ultrasonic instruments. J Endod. 2002; 28(4):330-2. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200204000-00018. View

12.

Liu Z, Zhang D, Li Q, Xu Q . Evaluation of root-end preparation with a new ultrasonic tip. J Endod. 2013; 39(6):820-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.03.004. View

13.

Chugal N, Mallya S, Kahler B, Lin L . Endodontic Treatment Outcomes. Dent Clin North Am. 2016; 61(1):59-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2016.08.009. View

14.

Kim S, Kratchman S . Modern endodontic surgery concepts and practice: a review. J Endod. 2006; 32(7):601-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.12.010. View

15.

Ishikawa H, Sawada N, Kobayashi C, Suda H . Evaluation of root-end cavity preparation using ultrasonic retrotips. Int Endod J. 2003; 36(9):586-90. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00676.x. View

16.

Tawil P . Periapical Microsurgery: Can Ultrasonic Root-end Preparations Clinically Create or Propagate Dentinal Defects?. J Endod. 2016; 42(10):1472-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.016. View

17.

Setzer F, Shah S, Kohli M, Karabucak B, Kim S . Outcome of endodontic surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature--part 1: Comparison of traditional root-end surgery and endodontic microsurgery. J Endod. 2010; 36(11):1757-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.007. View

18.

Gray G, HATTON J, Holtzmann D, Jenkins D, Nielsen C . Quality of root-end preparations using ultrasonic and rotary instrumentation in cadavers. J Endod. 2001; 26(5):281-3. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200005000-00007. View

19.

Vivan R, Guerreiro-Tanomaru J, Bernardes R, Reis J, Duarte M, Tanomaru-Filho M . Effect of ultrasonic tip and root-end filling material on bond strength. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20(8):2007-2011. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1708-9. View

20.

Fabbro M, Corbella S, Sequeira-Byron P, Tsesis I, Rosen E, Lolato A . Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 10:CD005511. PMC: 6461161. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005511.pub3. View