Influence of different endodontic filling materials on root fracture susceptibility

Objective: To evaluate the influence of different endodontic materials on root fracture susceptibility. Methods: Seventy-two mandibular incisors were sectioned 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction to obtain roots of 12 mm length. Roots were submitted to chemomechanical preparation with the rotary instruments of Profile system. The obturation of root canals were performed with the following filling materials (n = 12): GI, unfilled teeth (control); GII, Endofill + gutta-percha; GIII, Sealer 26 + gutta-percha; GIV, AH Plus + gutta-percha; GV, Epiphany + gutta-percha; GVI, Epiphany + Resilon. After the sealers setting time, each root was embedded in acrylic resin. The specimens were then submitted to fracture resistance test using an Instron testing machine at 1 mm/min. Results: The ANOVA test showed no significant statistical difference (p > .05) among GI (162.16 +/- 41.4N), GII (168.46 +/- 37.5N), GIII (164.83 +/- 35.7N), GIV (168.29 +/- 38.7N), GV (172.36 +/- 20.6N) and GVI (193.11 +/- 42.8N). Conclusion: The core materials (gutta-percha or Resilon) combined with the tested endodontic sealers are not able to increase the root fracture resistance in canals submitted to chemomechanical preparation. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures

P>This study assessed the effect of simulated mastication on the retention of two stud attachment systems for 2-implants overdentures. Sixteen specimens, each simulating an edentulous ridge with implants and an overdenture were divided into two groups, according to the attachment system: Group I (Nobel Biocare ball-socket attachments) and Group II (Locator attachments). Retention forces were measured before and after 400 000 simulated masticatory loads in a customised device. Data were compared by two-way anova followed by Bonferroni test (alpha = 0 center dot 05). Group I presented significantly lower retention forces (Newtons) than Group II at baseline (10 center dot 6 +/- 3 center dot 6 and 66 center dot 4 +/- 16 center dot 0, respectively). However, differences were not significant after 400 000 loads (7 center dot 9 +/- 4 center dot 3 and 21 center dot 6 +/- 17 center dot 0). The number of cycles did not influence the measurements in Group I, whereas a non-linear descending curve was found for Group II. It was concluded that simulated mastication resulted in minor changes for the ball attachment tested. Nevertheless, it reduced the retention of Locator attachments to 40% of the baseline values, what suggests that mastication is a major factor associated with maintenance needs for this system.