PubMed · 4510258
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
W Soltanoff. 1973. Apical sealing procedures.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4510258/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The aim of this study was to evaluate the sealing ability in orthogradely filled, apicoectomised and retrogradely filled maxillary premolars with two canals and two separate apical foramina. The root canals of 51 extracted maxillary premolars of type IV were uniformly shaped and filled by means of lateral condensation and subsequently randomly divided into three groups of 17 teeth each. The teeth of groups II and III received an apicoectomy. In group III an additional retrograde seal (Ketac Fil) was applied. Group I served as control. All specimens were immersed in a methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were cross-sectioned and the maximal dye-penetration was measured. The significantly least dye-penetration was observed in group II (apicoectomy only), followed by group I and group III. The differences among all groups were statistically significant (p<0.05). Most of the retrograde restorations in group III revealed circular colouration around the retrograde fillings extending to the gutta percha. Although the teeth of group II revealed the least dye-penetration, an apicoectomy cannot be favoured against an endodontic retreatment in maxillary premolars of type IV. The application of retrograde fillings using Ketac Fil must be considered critically.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have identified human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in symptomatic periapical lesions. Little information exists on HCMV and EBV in asymptomatic periapical lesions. AIM: To compare the presence of late transcripts of HCMV, EBV and herpes simplex virus (HSV) in symptomatic and asymptomatic periapical lesions. METHODS: Periapical samples were collected from seven symptomatic and seven asymptomatic periapical lesions at the time of apicoectomy. HCMV, EBV and HSV late mRNAs were identified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: HCMV mRNA was detected in all seven symptomatic periapical lesions and in one asymptomatic lesion (Chi-squared test, Yates'P-value = 0.007). EBV mRNA was detected in six symptomatic lesions and in one asymptomatic lesion (P = 0.04). One asymptomatic lesion yielded HSV mRNA. CONCLUSIONS: HCMV and EBV active infections are associated with acute exacerbation of apical periodontitis. HSV seems to be unimportant in periapical pathosis.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to answer the question: For patients requiring apicoectomy (apicectomy/root-end resection) and retrograde (root-end) obturation (filling), which retrograde obturation (root-end filling) material(s) is/are the most effective, as determined by reduction in periapical radiolucency and elimination of signs and symptoms? MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE and a Cochrane search (two specified searches) were conducted to identify randomised (RCT) and nonrandomised controlled clinical trials (CCT), cohort studies (CS) and case-control studies (CCS), published between 1966 and 2002, October week 4, conducted on humans, and published in English, German and French language, relating to retrograde obturation materials following apicoectomy. RESULTS: The MEDLINE and the Cochrane search identified 324 and 21 published articles, respectively. The Cochrane search identified three additional articles to the MEDLINE-search articles. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria: two were RCTs, six were CCTs, none was a CS and six were retrospective CCSs. Nine of the 14 studies compared a new retrograde (root-end)-filling material to amalgam, 4 of the 14 studies compared orthograde root canal fillings to retrograde (root-end) amalgam and the fourteenth study compared variations of a resin composite (Retroplast) when used in combination with the bonding agent Gluma (Bayer AG, Gluma 1 and 2). The two RCTs indicated that glass ionomer cement appeared to be equivalent to amalgam. The six CCTs indicated that orthograde filling with gutta-percha and sealer was more effective than amalgam retrograde (root-end)-filling (one trial). Similarly, retrograde (root-end)-filling with (i) composite and Gluma (Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) as bonding agent (one trial), (ii) reinforced zinc oxide eugenol cement (EBA cement) (Stailine, Staident, Middlesex, England; one trial) and (iii) gold leaf (one trial) appeared to be better than amalgam retrograde (root-end)-filling. Finally, gutta-percha retrograde (root-end)-filling appears to be less effective than amalgam (one trial) and Retroplast with ytterbium trifluoride is better than Retroplast with silver, when they are both used with Gluma as bonding agent (one trial). CONCLUSIONS: For the highest level of evidence (RCT) retrograde (root-end)-filling with glass ionomer cement is almost as effective as amalgam. However, there was a significant caveat as there were only two RCTs. At the next highest level of evidence (CCT), and given the additional caveat that there was only one controlled trial for each material, retrograde (root-end) EBA cement, composite with Gluma and gold leaf, as well as orthograde gutta-percha, may be more effective than retrograde (root-end) amalgam filling. In conclusion, these results suggest that additional validating CCTs and RCTs are needed.