Microleakage evaluation around retrograde filling materials prepared using conventional and ultrasonic techniques.

INTRODUCTION The importance of the retrograde cavity preparation and the material used to restore is of utmost importance to achieve successful surgical endodontics. AIM The aim of the present study is to evaluate the apical micro-leakage of root end cavities filled with Mineral trioxide aggregate, Biodentine and light cure GIC using two different cavity preparation techniques that is conventional bur preparation and ultrasonic tip preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighty extracted single rooted human teeth (except mandibular incisors) with one canal, fully developed apices and without any major carious lesion are collected for the study. The teeth were sectioned at CEJ to standardize the length. Roots are instrumented upto master apical file 40 K size and obturated with gutta percha and AH plus sealer in lateral condensation technique. The teeth were then resected apically at 90° angle axis to the long axis of the root removing 3 mm of the apex. The teeth were divided in to four groups of 20 each- • Group I- samples restored with MTA. • Group II- samples restored with Biodentine. • Group III- (Positive control group)- samples restored with Light activated GIC. • Group IV - (negative control group)- no filling material. Each group is divided into two subgroups (a, b) of ten teeth each 1. Retropreparation done with ultrasonic retrotip. 2. Retropreparation done with conventional bur. The teeth were then immersed in 0.5% Rhodamine B dye for 48 h. The teeth were split longitudinally and the interface between the restored material and the canal wall is observed under Confocal laser scanning microscope. Depth of dye penetration was examined under stereomicroscope. RESULTS The statistical analysis was performed by One way ANOVA, t test. Pair wise comparision was done by Newman - Keuls multiple post hoc test. The mean values of Dye penetration for Group Ia (321.23), Group Ib (490.11), Group IIa (1065.14), Group IIb (1170.96), Group IIIa (1888.90), Group IIIb (2025.35). The samples prepared with ultrasonic retrotip showed less microleakage but it is statistically not significant. CONCLUSION MTA showed significantly less microleakage when compared to Biodentine and light cure GIC and there is no statistical difference between the ultrasonic retrotip preparation and conventional bur preparation.

[1]  Ajinkya M. Pawar,et al.  An in vitro comparative stereomicroscopic evaluation of marginal seal between MTA, glass inomer cement & biodentine as root end filling materials using 1% methylene blue as tracer , 2012, Endodontology.

[2]  B W Darvell,et al.  "MTA"-an Hydraulic Silicate Cement: review update and setting reaction. , 2011, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[3]  M. Vallecillo-Capilla,et al.  Influence of cavity preparation technique (rotary vs. ultrasonic) on microleakage and marginal fit of six end-root filling materials. , 2011, Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal.

[4]  J. V. Baldi,et al.  Evaluation of apical cavity preparation with a new type of ultrasonic diamond tip. , 2007, Journal of endodontics.

[5]  M. Versiani,et al.  A comparative histological evaluation of the biocompatibility of materials used in apical surgery. , 2004, International endodontic journal.

[6]  B. Gomes,et al.  Investigation of the marginal adaptation of root-end filling materials in root-end cavities prepared with ultrasonic tips. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[7]  S. Doméjean-Orliaguet,et al.  Leakage associated with intermediate restorative material and glass-ionomer cement retrograde fillings: a human and sheep teeth comparison with 2 different aging procedures. , 2002, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[8]  J. Aqrabawi.  Sealing ability of amalgam, super EBA cement, and MTA when used as retrograde filling materials. , 2000 .

[9]  T. Dumsha,et al.  Leakage of amalgam, composite, and Super-EBA, compared with a new retrofill material: bone cement. , 2000, Journal of endodontics.

[10]  S. Taschieri,et al.  Ultrasonic root-end preparation: influence of cutting angle on the apical seal. , 1998, Journal of endodontics.

[11]  Y. Boucher,et al.  A photoelastimetric analysis of stress induced by root-end resection. , 1998, Journal of endodontics.

[12]  C. P. Lin,et al.  The quality of ultrasonic root-end preparation: a quantitative study. , 1998, Journal of endodontics.

[13]  J. J. Legan,et al.  In vitro evaluation of effects of ultrasonic root-end preparation on resected root surfaces. , 1997, Journal of endodontics.

[14]  F. Gerhards,et al.  Sealing ability of five different retrograde filling materials. , 1996, Journal of endodontics.

[15]  M. Torabinejad,et al.  Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material. , 1995, Journal of endodontics.

[16]  M. Torabinejad,et al.  Dye leakage of four root end filling materials: effects of blood contamination. , 1994, Journal of endodontics.

[17]  M. Tyas,et al.  Apical dentin permeability and microleakage associated with root end resection and retrograde filling. , 1994, Journal of endodontics.

[18]  H. Tezel,et al.  A comparative sealability study of different retrofilling materials. , 1993, International endodontic journal.

[19]  S. Dorn,et al.  Advances in endodontic surgery. , 1992, Dental clinics of North America.

[20]  B. G. Tidmarsh,et al.  Dentinal tubules at the root ends of apicected teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study. , 1989, International endodontic journal.