RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Anatomical terms in medical literature have been used with varying meanings, leading to confusion in clinical practice. This study aims to investigate the ambiguity of anatomical terms in clinical dentistry. METHODS: Dentists who have undergone specialised training with at least one year of clinical experience were recruited to participate in the study. They were requested to localize specific terms on a skull and provide explanations based on their experience or opinion. All data were recorded, and then descriptive statistics were used for analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-eight participating dentists gave their consent and were eligible to study. For each anatomical term presented to dentists at least two meanings were provided, with some terms having up to eight interpretations. While most meanings were consistent with medical or dental literature, some responses revealed new interpretations not documented in textbooks. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists expressed anatomical terms with diverse meanings, possibly influenced by their various subspecialties. It is crucial to acknowledge this variability to prevent confusion. Emphasizing the consistent use of anatomical terms among dental professionals in the future is essential.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This review article describes the methods and clinical recommendations for reinforcing traumatized anterior immature teeth with pulp necrosis treated with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) apexification. Traumatic injury can cause pulp necrosis and incomplete root formation in immature teeth. MTA apexification is the treatment of choice for necrotic immature teeth, particularly during the middle or late stages of root development. MTA apexification has a high success rate; however, failures due to cervical or root fractures occasionally occur. The risk of fracture is higher in immature teeth with thin root dentin, particularly those with external root resorption. Furthermore, the loading force from any parafunctional habit also increases fracture risk. Therefore, intra-radicular reinforcement may be necessary after MTA apexification. In vitro, intraradicular restoration with a resin composite/core build-up material or a prefabricated fiber post demonstrated better root reinforcement than root canal obturation materials (i.e., gutta-percha and sealer). However, the root-reinforcement effect of MTA orthograde filling in the entire root canal remains unclear. In vivo, the survival of fractured teeth with intraradicular restorations (resin composite/core build-up material or prefabricated fiber posts) is extremely high. Moreover, the survival of teeth with gutta-percha/sealer obturation or MTA orthograde filling and restoration with resin composite extending into the cervical third of the root canal approximately 1-2 mm below the cemento-enamel junction is acceptably high. Based on this evidence, the remaining tooth/root structure and loading force should be carefully examined when considering intra-radicular reinforcement of immature anterior teeth treated with MTA apexification.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To compare the survival rate against fracture of endodontically treated anterior teeth (ETT) affected by cervical (class V) lesions with pulpal involvement restored with resin composite or a post/core and crown, and to identify the prognostic factors for fracture. METHODS: Dental records and radiographs of ETT affected by cervical lesions with pulpal involvement restored with resin composite or a post/core and crown during a recall period from 2009-2022 were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The number of tooth fracture, the restorability after fracture and any possible risk factors were identified. The survival rate against ETT fracture were analyzed and com- pared between the two restoration groups by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the Tarone-Ware test. Non- proportional hazard models were used to identify the prognostic factors. The sub-analysis in each restoration group was also performed. RESULTS: The study comprised 175 ETT restored with resin composite (n=125) or a crown (n=50). With a mean recall period of 32.9+-15.8 months, the survival rate against ETT fracture with resin composite (85.6%) was not significantly different from those with a crown (88%) (p≥0.05). The most frequent mode of fracture was crown-root fracture, which accounted for 78% and 83.30% of the fractures in the resin composite and crown groups, respectively. A significant prognostic factor for ETT fracture affected by cervical lesions with pulpal involve- ment was additional tooth structure loss from a class III, class IV or another class V lesion on the opposite side (p<0.05). The ETT affected by cervical lesions with pulpal involvement combined with additional tooth structure loss had a 7.25-fold higher risk of fracture than those with single-surface affected by cervical lesions with pulpal involvement (hazard ratio [HR] = 7.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-31.30). The sub-analysis in the crown and resin composite groups revealed that the survival rates of ETT with single-surface affected by cervical lesions with pulpal involvement was 100% and 96.15%, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of ETT with additional tooth loss at 80.65% and 78.08%, respectively (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: With a mean 33-month recall period, the survival rate against ETT fracture affected by cervical lesions with pulpal involvement restored with resin composite or crown were not significantly different. Additional tooth structure loss was a significant prognostic factor for fracture.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to compare the post-fracture survival rate of endodontically treated molar endodontically treated teeth (molar ETT) restored with resin composites or crowns and to identify potential risk factors, using a retrospective cohort design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental records of molar ETT with crowns or composite restorations (recall period, 2015-2019) were collected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The incidence of unrestorable fractures was identified, and molar ETT were classified according to survival. Information on potential risk factors was collected. Survival rates and potential risk factors were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier log-rank test and Cox regression model. RESULTS: The overall survival rate of molar ETT was 87% (mean recall period, 31.73 ± 17.56 months). The survival rates of molar ETT restored with composites and crowns were 81.6% and 92.7%, reflecting a significant difference (p < 0.05). However, ETT restored with composites showed a 100% survival rate if only 1 surface was lost, which was comparable to the survival rate of ETT with crowns. The survival rates of ETT with composites and crowns were significantly different (97.6% vs. 83.7%) in the short-term (12-24 months), but not in the long-term (> 24 months) (87.8% vs. 79.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The survival rate from fracture was higher for molar ETT restored with crowns was higher than for ETT restored with composites, especially in the first 2 years after restoration. Molar ETT with limited tooth structure loss only on the occlusal surface could be successfully restored with composite restorations.

RESUMEN

AIM: To evaluate fracture resistance and gap/void presence of root-filled mandibular molars restored with 2 bulk-fill and 1 conventional resin composites, with or without a glass-ionomer cement (GIC) base. METHODS: Coronal access and mesio-occlusal (MO) cavities were prepared, then root canal treatment was performed on 30 mol/L. The teeth were randomly divided, according to the cavity volume, into 6 experimental groups (N = 5) and restored with conventional/light-cured (Ceram-X), bulk-fill/light-cured (SureFil SDR) or bulk-fill/dual-cured (Core-X Flow) with/without a 2-mm thick GIC base. Gaps and voids (%) were determined using microcomputed tomography. Intact teeth and unrestored teeth were used as negative and positive controls. Fracture load (N) was determined using a universal testing machine. RESULTS: No significant difference in fracture resistance or gap/void formation was found among the 3 resin composites. GIC-base groups revealed significantly lower fracture strength than intact teeth, while fracture strengths of no GIC-base groups were not significantly different from intact teeth. GIC-base groups revealed significantly more gaps and voids in the area of the GIC than the resin composite. CONCLUSION: Conventional and bulk-fill resin composites provided similar fracture resistance and gaps/voids in root-filled molars with MO cavities. Placing a GIC base decreased fracture resistance and increased gap/void formation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate sealing ability of root canals obturated with bioceramic-impregnated gutta percha cone (BCC) or gutta percha (GP), with bioceramic sealer (BCS) or AH Plus (AH; Dentsply-Maillefer), in roundly-prepared canals using matched single-cone technique, based on bacterial leakage test, and to analyze obturation quality using micro-computed tomography (CT) analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-two distobuccal roots of maxillary molars were prepared using nickel-titanium files to apical size 40/0.06. The roots were divided into 4 groups (n = 20) that were obturated with a master cone and sealer: GP/AH, BCC/AH, GP/BCS, and BCC/BCS. Bacterial leakage model using Enterococcus faecalis was used to evaluate sealing ability for 60-day period. Obturated samples from each group (n = 4) were analyzed using micro-CT. RESULTS: All groups showed bacterial leakage at 20%-45% of samples with mean leakage times of 42-52 days. There were no significant differences in bacterial leakage among the groups. Micro-CT showed minimal gaps and voids in all groups at less than 1%. CONCLUSIONS: In roundly-prepared canals, the single cone obturation with BCC/BCS was comparable to GP/AH for bacterial leakage at 60 days.