Resistência à infiltração de glicose de quatro cimentos reparadores

• Autor(a) principal: Fonseca, Fernanda de Souza Leal
• Data de Publicação: 2010
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UERJ
• Texto Completo: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/14125
• topic: Endodontic; Apicetomy; Retrograde obturation; Dental leakage; Endodontia; Apicetomia; Obturação retrógrada; Infiltração dentária; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA::ENDODONTIA

The present study sought to compare the sealing ability of three new reparative endodontic cements Ceramicrete, iRoot-BP Plus, BioAggregate and compared to white ProRoot MTA, using the glucose leakage model under pressure. Sixty-four recently extracted maxillary incisors, without previous endodontic treatment, were selected. A crown-down root canal instrumentation was performed using Gates-Glidden burns and Kerr Flexofile (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues Switzerland), 1mm short of the apical foramen (working length). The apical patency was confirmed after the use of each instrument, with a Kerr file #10, 1mm beyond the foramen. The teeth had their crowns removed, leaving roots 15mm in length. After that, apicetomy was carried out at 3mm from the apex. The retrograde preparation was performed using the E32D ultrasonic tip (NSK Nakanishi Inc., Tokyo, Japan). Roots were randomly distributed in four experimental groups (n=15): G1 - Ceramicrete, G2 - iRoot BP Plus, G3 - BioAggregate and G4 - white ProRoot MTA as gold-standard for comparisons. For the negative control group (n=2) teeth with intact crowns were used, and for the positive control (n=2), teeth with access and apical patency. The root-end filling material was manipulated as recommended by the manufacturer and inserted into the retrograde cavity using the same ultrasonic tip. The samples were stored at 100% humidity for three days to allow setting of the material. After that, the roots were mounted in a double-chamber apparatus where 0,75ml of 1Mol/L glucose solution was placed into the superior chamber and 0,75ml of distilled water was placed into the inferior chamber. The devices were connected to a pressure distribution system that was developed to allow the leakage of 32 samples at a single stage. The glucose solution was forced apically under a pressure of 15psi during 1 hour. A sample of 10µl was taken from the inferior chamber and the glucose concentration was measured following an enzymatic reaction using the Glucose HK Kit (Megazyme, Wicklow, Ireland) and a spectrophotometer (Campsec M 330, Cambridge, UK) at a wave-length of 340nm. The Kruskal-Wallis and the Dunn s test were used for statistical analyses. The results demonstrated that there was significant difference between experimental groups (p=0,0036). BioAggregate displayed the highest glucose concentration - 1.85(g/L), followed by ProRoot MTA - 1.2; iRoot BP Plus - 0.85; Ceramicrete - 0.75. No significant difference was observed between the three new reparative cements and the gold-standard (p>0.05). There was no difference between Ceramicrete and iRoot BP Plus (p>0.05), however both materials were significantly different fromBioAggregate (p<0.05). Considering the results, it can be concluded that none of the tested cements was able to prevent glucose leakage, the 3 new tested cements do not presented a similar quality of sealing, and the three new tested cements presented a similar sealing pattern of ProRoot MTA and both Ceramicrete and iRoot BP Plus presented better quality of sealing than BioAggregate.