In vitro comparison of three materials as apical sealants of equine premolar and molar teeth.
BACKGROUND
Surgical endodontic therapy is a conservative dental technique used in horses with some degree of clinical success. Failure of this procedure can partially be explained by inadequate sealing of the root apices with resultant microleakage in the periapical area.


OBJECTIVE
To assess and compare in vitro sealing ability of 3 different dental restorative materials used as apical sealants during equine surgical endodontics.


METHODS
Thirty extracted equine cheek teeth were divided randomly into 3 groups and subjected to apicoectomy and apical sealing using 3 materials: reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol cement; intermediate restorative material (IRM); a resin-modified glass ionomer; and amalgam. After apical sealing, the teeth were submerged in a solution of Procion Brilliant Cresyl Blue stain for a period of 7 days. The teeth were then washed, embedded in resin, sectioned and assessed microscopically for dye leakage around the apical restorations.


RESULTS
Although the materials proved effective as apical sealants, some dye leakage was encountered in all 3 groups with no statistical difference (P = 0.114).


CONCLUSIONS
IRM, a resin-modified glass ionomer and amalgam all showed comparative features as apical sealants when used in vitro in equine teeth. IRM is currently regarded as the superior material in clinical situations due to its ease of handling and lesser sensitivity to environmental moisture during placement compared to the other 2 materials.
Steenkamp
G
G
Department of Companion Animal Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, School of Dentistry, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa.
Olivier-Carstens
A
A
van Heerden
W F P
WF
Crossley
D A
DA
Boy
S C
SC
D000818:Animals; D001047:Apicoectomy / Q000662:veterinary*; D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D003188:Composite Resins; D003723:Dental Amalgam / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000494:pharmacology; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000662:veterinary*; D003813:Dentistry / Q000379:methods / Q000662:veterinary*; D004708:Endodontics; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000494:pharmacology; D006736:Horses; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008768:Methylmethacrylates / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000494:pharmacology; D010895:Pit and Fissure Sealants / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000494:pharmacology*; D011897:Random Allocation; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000494:pharmacology; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000494:pharmacology*; D014227:Triazines; D015035:Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000494:pharmacology
D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D003188:Composite Resins; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008768:Methylmethacrylates; D010895:Pit and Fissure Sealants; D019279:Resin Cements; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials; D014227:Triazines; C084550:Vitremer; D015035:Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement; C032467:procion brilliant blue HGR; C031667:IRM cement; D003723:Dental Amalgam