Gisele Aihara Haragushiku

Analysis of the Internal Anatomy of Maxillary First Molars by Using Different Methods

The success of endodontic treatment depends on the identification of all root canals so that they can be cleaned, shaped, and obturated. This study investigated internal morphology of maxillary first molars by 3 different methods: ex vivo, clinical, and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) analysis. In all these different methods, the number of additional root canals and their locations, the number of foramina, and the frequency of canals that could or could not be negotiated were recorded. In the ex vivo study, 140 extracted maxillary first molars were evaluated. After canals were accessed and detected by using an operating microscope, the teeth with significant anatomic variances were cleared. In the clinical analysis, the records of 291 patients who had undergone endodontic treatment in a dental school during a 2-year period were used. In the CBCT analysis, 54 maxillary first molars were evaluated. The ex vivo assessment results showed a fourth canal frequency in 67.14% of the teeth, besides a tooth with 7 root canals (0.72%). Additional root canals were located in the mesiobuccal root in 92.85% of the teeth (17.35% could not be negotiated), and when they were present, 65.30% exhibited 1 foramen. Clinical assessment showed that 53.26%, 0.35%, and 0.35% of the teeth exhibited 4, 5, and 6 root canals, respectively. Additional root canals were located in this assessment in mesiobuccal root in 95.63% (27.50% could not be negotiated), and when they were present, 59.38% exhibited 1 foramen. CBCT results showed 2, 4, and 5 root canals in 1.85%, 37.05%, and 1.85% of the teeth, respectively. When present, additional canals showed 1 foramen in 90.90% of the teeth studied. This study demonstrated that operating microscope and CBCT have been important for locating and identifying root canals, and CBCT can be used as a good method for initial identification of maxillary first molar internal morphology.

Analysis of the interface and bond strength of resin-based endodontic cements to root dentin

This study evaluated by scanning electron microscopy the interface between root dentin and resin cements, with or without additional application of a dual‐cured one‐step self‐etching dentin adhesive. In addition, the push‐out bond strength of these materials to dentin was evaluated. Root canals of 50 maxillary human canines were subjected to biomechanical preparation and randomly assigned into five groups (n = 10) according to the obturation employed: I. AH Plus/gutta‐percha; II. Endo‐REZ/gutta‐percha; III. Epiphany SE/Resilon; IV. Endo‐REZ/gutta‐percha + adhesive; and V. Epiphany SE/Resilon + adhesive. After obturation, two cross sections of 1.0 mm of each third of the root were obtained and analyzed by SEM and push‐out. Data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis, Two‐way ANOVA and Tukeys HSD tests (α = 5%). Significant differences occurred between scores for gap parameters and tags; greater tag formation resulted for Epiphany SE (P < 0.05). There were also significant differences between groups for the bond strength. AH Plus (1.24 ± 0.70) showed higher values (P < 0.05) compared to groups II (0,17 ± 0.19), III (0.10 ± 0.06), IV (0.09 ± 0.08), and V (0.06 ± 0.03), which were statistically similar (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the root thirds (P > 0.05). It was concluded that the use of a self‐etching adhesive system did not improve the adhesion of resin‐based sealers to dentin and that AH Plus showed better bond strength when compared to other cements. Microsc. Res. Tech., 2012.

Influence of antimicrobial solutions in the decontamination and adhesion of glass-fiber posts to root canals

Objective This study evaluated the effect of root canal disinfectants on the elimination of bacteria from the root canals, as well as their effect on glass-fiber posts bond strength. Material and Methods Fifty-three endodontically treated root canals had post spaces of 11 mm in length prepared and contaminated with E. faecalis. For CFU/ml analysis, eight teeth were contaminated for 1 h or 30 days (n=4). Teeth were decontaminated with 5% NaOCl, 2% CHX, or distilled water. As control, no decontamination was conducted. After decontamination, sterile paper points were used to collect samples, and CFU/ml were counted. For push-out, three groups were evaluated (n=15): irrigation with 2.5% NaOCl, 2% CHX, or sterile distilled water. A bonding agent was applied to root canal dentin, and a glass-fiber post was cemented with a dual-cured cement. After 24 h, 1-mm-thick slices of the middle portion of root canals were obtained and submitted to the push-out evaluation. Three specimens of each group were evaluated in scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Dunnett’s T3 test (α=0.05). Results The number of CFU/ml increased from 1 h to 30 days of contamination in control and sterile distilled water groups. Decontamination with NaOCl was effective only when teeth were contaminated for 1 h. CHX was effective at both contamination times. NaOCl did not influence the bond strength (p>0.05). Higher values were observed with CHX (p<0.05). SEM showed formation of resin tags in all groups. Conclusion CHX showed better results for the irrigation of contaminated root canals both in reducing the bacterial contamination and in improving the glass-fiber post bonding.

Influence of light activation of simplified adhesives on the shear bond strength of resin cements to a leucite-reinforced ceramic

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the influence of the light activation of simplified adhesives on the shear bond strength of resin cements to a glass-ceramic. Three factors were evaluated: (1) cement in two levels (light cured and dual cured); (2) adhesive in two levels (Single Bond 2 and Single Bond Universal), and (3) light activation in two levels (yes or no). Materials and Methods: Thirty-two 1-mm thick slices of a leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic (IPS Empress CAD) were divided into eight groups according to adhesive (Single Bond 2 or Single Bond Universal), cement (AllCem Veneer or AllCem), and light activation of the adhesive before application of the cement (yes or no). Ceramic surfaces were etched for 60 s with 5% hydrofluoric acid, and adhesives were applied. Four cement cylinders were made over each ceramic slice (n = 16) and then submitted to shear bond strength tests. Statistical Analysis: Data were analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey (α = 0.05). Results: There were significant differences between adhesives (P < 0.0001) and no differences between cements (P = 0.0763) and light activation (P = 0.4385). No interaction effect occurred (P = 0.05). Single Bond 2 showed higher bond strength than Single Bond Universal. Conclusions: The light activation of the adhesive before the application of the resin cement did not influence the bond strength.