33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparative evaluation of the vertical fracture resistance of endodontically treated roots filled with Gutta-percha and Resilon: a meta-analysis of in vitro studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Teeth treated endodontically are more susceptible to vertical root fracture (VRF). Some studies have suggested that obturating the root canals with Gutta-percha or Resilon can reinforce endodontically treated teeth, but a few others have presented conflicting results. These inconsistent results cannot guide clinicians in determining clinical approaches. The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate and compare the vertical fracture resistance of endodontically treated root canals obturated with Gutta-percha/AH plus and the Resilon system.

          Methods

          Comprehensive literature searches were performed in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and Embase databases. The titles and abstracts of all of the retrieved articles were independently assessed by two authors according to predefined selection criteria. Data in the included articles were independently extracted. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. The pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the outcome indicators. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The Cochran Q test (I 2 test) was used to test for heterogeneity among studies.

          Results

          Fourteen randomized controlled in vitro trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the vertical root fracture resistance of unprepared and unfilled roots was significantly higher than that of roots obturated with Gutta-percha/AH plus (SMD = − 0.69, 95% CI = − 1.34 to − 0.04, p = 0.04) or the Resilon system (SMD = − 0.54, 95% CI = − 1.07 to − 0.00, p = 0.05). The differences in fracture resistance between the roots filled with Gutta-percha/AH plus and the prepared unfilled root canals was not significant (SMD = 0.59, 95% CI = − 0.02 to 1.21, p = 0.06). Roots obturated with Resilon had higher fracture resistance than instrumented unfilled roots (SMD = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.44 to 1.22, p < 0.0001) or roots filled with Gutta-percha/AH plus (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.01 to 1.23, p = 0.05).

          Conclusions

          The present study suggests that filling with Gutta-percha/AH plus dose not reinforce endodontically treated roots, whereas obturating with the Resilon system can increase vertical root fracture resistance of prepared roots. As this meta-analysis was based on in vitro studies, it should be careful to extrapolate its conclusion to the clinical context.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Monoblocks in root canals: a hypothetical or a tangible goal.

          The term monoblock has become familiar in the endodontic literature with recent interest in the application of dentin adhesive technology to endodontics. Endodontic monoblocks have generated controversial discussions among academicians and clinicians as to whether they are able to improve the quality of seal in root fillings and to strengthen roots. This review attempts to provide a broader meaning to the term monoblock and to see how this definition may be applied to the materials that have been used in the past and present for rehabilitation of the root canal space. The potential of currently available bondable materials to achieve mechanically homogeneous units with root dentin is then discussed in relation to the classical concept in which the term monoblock was first employed in restorative dentistry and subsequently in endodontics.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Role of Resin Cement on Bond Strength of Glass-fiber Posts Luted Into Root Canals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis ofIn VitroStudies

            Because there are several ways to cement glass-fiber posts (GFPs) into root canals, there is no consensus on the best strategy to achieve high bond strengths. A systematic review was conducted to determine if there is difference in bond strength to dentin between regular and self-adhesive resin cements and to verify the influence of several variables on the retention of GFPs. This report followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. In vitro studies that investigated the bond strength of GFPs luted with self-adhesive and regular resin cements were selected. Searches were carried out in the PubMed and Scopus databases. No publication year or language limit was used, and the last search was done in October 2012. A global comparison was performed between self-adhesive and regular resin cements. Two subgroup analyses were performed: 1) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Etch-and-rinse adhesive and 2) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Self-etch adhesive. The analyses were carried out using fixed-effect and random-effects models. The results showed heterogeneity in all comparisons, and higher bond strength to dentin was identified for self-adhesive cements. Although the articles included in this meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity and high risk of bias, the in vitro literature seems to suggest that use of self-adhesive resin cement could improve the retention of GFPs into root canals.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An evaluation of microbial leakage in roots filled with a thermoplastic synthetic polymer-based root canal filling material (Resilon).

              The purpose of this study was to compare bacterial leakage using Streptococcus mutans and Enterococcus faecalis through gutta-percha and a thermoplastic synthetic polymer-based root filling (Resilon) using two filling techniques during a 30-day period. Teeth were decoronated, roots prepared to a length of 16 mm, and instrumented to ISO sizes 40 to 50. A total of 156 roots were randomly divided into 8 groups of 15 roots (groups 1-8) and 3 control groups (12 roots each). Roots were filled using lateral and vertical condensation techniques with gutta-percha and AH 26 sealer (groups 1 and 2) or with gutta-percha and Epiphany sealer (groups 3 and 4). Groups 5 and 6 were filled with Resilon and Epiphany sealer using the lateral or vertical condensation techniques. A split chamber microbial leakage model was used in which S. mutans placed in the upper chamber could reach the lower chamber only through the filled canal. Groups 7 and 8 were identical to groups 5 and 6 respectively; however, E. faecalis was used to test the leakage. Positive controls were filled with Resilon (12 roots) and gutta-percha (12 roots) without sealer and tested with bacteria, whereas negative controls (12 roots) were sealed with wax to test the seal between chambers. All but one positive control leaked within 24 h, whereas none of the negative controls leaked. Resilon showed minimal leakage (group 8: one leakage; groups 5-7: each with two leakages), which was significantly less than gutta-percha, in which approximately 80% of specimens with either technique or sealer leaked. Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistical significance when all groups were compared (p < 0.05). Mann-Whitney U test compared the respective groups and found Resilon groups superior to gutta-percha groups (p < 0.05).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                18875038152@163.com
                chaizhaowu@163.com
                1136381703@qq.com
                759126274@qq.com
                gaoxiang042@163.com
                88014252@qq.com
                13594327961 , soongjl@163.com
                Journal
                BMC Oral Health
                BMC Oral Health
                BMC Oral Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6831
                13 June 2018
                13 June 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 107
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8653 0555, GRID grid.203458.8, College of Stomatology, , Chongqing Medical University, ; Chongqing, China
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8653 0555, GRID grid.203458.8, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases and Biomedical Sciences, , College of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University, ; Chongqing, China
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8653 0555, GRID grid.203458.8, Chongqing Municipal Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Engineering of Higher Education, , College of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University, ; Chongqing, China
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8653 0555, GRID grid.203458.8, Stomatological Hospital affiliated to Chongqing Medical University, ; No. 426, N. Songshi Rd, Chongqing, 401147 China
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0224-6640
                Article
                571
                10.1186/s12903-018-0571-x
                5998564
                29895270
                e31acc7e-450f-4671-9bcb-0944bb3beeef
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 15 December 2017
                : 31 May 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Project Supported by Chongqing Municipal Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Engineering of Higher Education
                Funded by: Project Supported by Program for Innovation Team Building at Institutions of Higher Education in Chongqing in 2016
                Award ID: CXTDG201602006
                Funded by: the Medical Research Program of Chongqing Health and Family Planning Commission in 2015
                Award ID: 2015MSXM045
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Dentistry
                gutta-percha,resilon sealer,root canal obturation,tooth fracture,meta-analysis
                Dentistry
                gutta-percha, resilon sealer, root canal obturation, tooth fracture, meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article