RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of distilled water, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), phosphoric acid and maleic acid on Biodentine regarding surface topography, microhardness and push-out bond strength (POBS). METHODS: Fifty-two cylindrical shaped Biodentine specimens were divided into groups: control (distilled water); EDTA (17% EDTA); PA (37% phosphoric acid); and MA (7% maleic acid). Surfaces were evaluated by topographic analysis and Vickers microhardness test. Topographic changes were evaluated qualitatively and microhardness was statistically analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test. Forty mandibular molars were used to simulate clinical conditions. The crowns were removed and a perforation was created at the furcal floor. The Biodentine was packed into the root perforations and the roots were divided into four groups (DW, EDTA, PA, MA). Samples were stored and subjected to interfacial analysis. POBS data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests. RESULTS: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, MA and PA changed the morphology of the Biodentine surface. PA showed microhardness similar to distilled water (P > 0.05), while MA and EDTA demonstrated reduced values when compared with PA (P < 0.05). PA improved the POBS of Biodentine in comparison with the control. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in the topography, microhardness and POBS of Biodentine are associated with irrigant agent used.
Asunto(s)
Quelantes/química , Coronas , Ácido Edético/química , Compuestos de Calcio/química , Análisis del Estrés Dental , Dentina/efectos de los fármacos , Ácido Edético/farmacología , Dureza , Humanos , Maleatos/química , Ensayo de Materiales , Ácidos Fosfóricos/química , Silicatos/químicaRESUMEN
AIM: To evaluate the influence of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) filters on diagnosis of simulated endodontic complications. METHODOLOGY: Sixteen human teeth, in three mandibles, were submitted to the following simulated endodontic complications: (G1) fractured file, (G2) perforations in the canal walls, (G3) deviated cast post, and (G4) external root resorption. The mandibles were submitted to CBCT examination (I-Cat® Next Generation). Five oral radiologists evaluated the images independently with and without XoranCat® software filters. Accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were determined. ROC curves were calculated for each group with the filters, and the areas under the curves were compared using anova (one-way) test. McNemar test was applied for pair-wise agreement between all images versus the gold standard and original images versus images with filters (P < 0.05). RESULTS: G1 was the most difficult endodontic complication to diagnosis, followed by G2, G4 and G3. There were no differences between areas under the ROC curves for the filters in all groups; however, Sharpen Super Mild filter had the best results for G1 (0.47), Angio Sharpen Low 3 × 3 for G2 (0.93), Angio Sharpen Low 3 × 3, S9, Shadow and Sharpen for G3 (1.00) and Sharpen 3 × 3 for G4 (1.00). The McNemar test revealed significant differences between all filters with the gold standard (P = 0.00 for all filters) and the originals images (P = 0.00 for all filters) only in G1 group. There were no differences in the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: The filters did not improve the diagnosis of the simulated endodontic complications evaluated. Their diagnosis remains a major challenge in clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Tomografía Computarizada de Haz Cónico/instrumentación , Enfermedades de la Pulpa Dental/diagnóstico , Intensificación de Imagen Radiográfica/métodos , Humanos , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
AIM: To compare cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with periapical radiography for the identification of simulated endodontic complications. METHODOLOGY: Sixteen human teeth, in three mandibles, were submitted to the following simulated endodontic complications: G1) fractured endodontic file; G2) root perforation; G3) cast post with deviation; G4) external root resorption. Periapical radiographs were taken of each tooth at three different angles, and CBCT scan was taken. One calibrated examiner who was specialized in dental radiology interpreted the images. The results were analysed using the following scoring system: 0 - unidentified alteration; 1 - alteration identified with inaccurate diagnosis; and 2 - alteration identified with accurate diagnosis. Data were analysed using McNemar and Wilcoxon tests (alfa=0.05). RESULTS: In the overall assessment, CBCT was superior when compared with periapical radiographs (P<0.05). When individual results on each complication were evaluated, CBCT was superior only in the identification of external root resorption (100% Score 2) (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Cone-beam computed tomography could be an alternative to periapical radiographs especially in the detection and assessment of external root resorption.