Periapical Tissue Response After Use of Intermediate Restorative Material, Gutta-Percha, Reinforced Zinc Oxide Cement, and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate as Retrograde Root-End Filling Materials: A Histologic Study in Dogs

Purpose: To investigate the periapical tissue response of 4 different retrograde root-filling materials, ie, intermediate restorative material, thermoplasticized gutta-percha, reinforced zinc oxide cement (Super-EBA), and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), in conjunction with an ultrasonic root-end preparation technique in an animal model. Materials and Methods: Vital roots of the third and fourth right mandibular premolars in 6 healthy mongrel dogs were apicectomized and sealed with 1 of the materials using a standardized surgical procedure. After 120 days, the animals were sacrificed and the specimens were analyzed radiologically, histologically, and scanning electron microscopically. The Fisher exact test was performed on the 2 outcome values. Results: Twenty-three sections were analyzed histologically. Evaluation showed better re-establishment of the periapical tissues and generally lower inflammatory infiltration in the sections from teeth treated with the intermediate restorative material and the MTA. New root cement on the resected dentin surfaces was seen on all sections regardless of the used material. New hard tissue formation, directly on the surface of the material, was seen only in the MTA sections. There was no statistical difference in outcome among the tested materials. Conclusions: The results from this dog model favor the intermediate restorative material and MTA as retrograde fillings when evaluating the bone defect regeneration. MTA has the most favorable periapical tissue response when comparing the biocompatibility of the materials tested. (C) 2012 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70:2041-2047, 2012

Eroded dentin does not jeopardize the bond strength of adhesive restorative materials

This in vitro study evaluated the bond strength of adhesive restorative materials to sound and eroded dentin. Thirty-six bovine incisors were embedded in acrylic resin and ground to obtain flat buccal dentin surfaces. Specimens were randomly allocated in 2 groups: sound dentin (immersion in artificial saliva) and eroded dentin (pH cycling model - 3x / cola drink for 7 days). Specimens were then reassigned according to restorative material: glass ionomer cement (Ketac (TM) Molar Easy Mix), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer (TM)) or adhesive system with resin composite (Adper Single Bond 2 + Filtek Z250). Polyethylene tubes with an internal diameter of 0.76 mm were placed over the dentin and filled with the material. The microshear bond test was performed after 24 h of water storage at 37 degrees C. The failure mode was evaluated using a stereomicroscope (400x). Bond strength data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests (alpha = 0.05). Eroded dentin showed bond strength values similar to those for sound dentin for all materials. The adhesive system showed the highest bond strength values, regardless of the substrate (p < 0.0001). For all groups, the adhesive/mixed failure prevailed. In conclusion, adhesive materials may be used in eroded dentin without jeopardizing the bonding quality. It is preferable to use an etch-and-rinse adhesive system because it shows the highest bond strength values compared with the glass ionomer cements tested.