SEM analysis of the integrity of resected root apices of cadaver and extracted teeth after ultrasonic root-end preparation at different intensities.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the integrity of root apices of cadaver and extracted teeth after resection, ultrasonic root-end cavity preparation at medium and low ultrasonic power settings and retrieval.


METHODS
Root canal treatment, perpendicular root-end resection and root-end preparation were performed on single-rooted anterior and premolar teeth (49 teeth in situ in maxillary and mandibular jaws from cadavers and 45 extracted teeth). Apical root-end cavities were prepared with the S12/90 degrees D tip and the Suni-Max ultrasonic unit (Satelec, Merignac, France) at the intensity prescribed by the manufacturer (power 7 at power mode S) (34 cadaver teeth, 30 extracted teeth) and at a lower intensity (power 4 at power mode S) (15 cadaver teeth, 15 extracted teeth). After ultrasonic preparation the cadaver teeth were retrieved from the jaws. Exaflex impressions (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) were made of the root apices after resection, root-end preparation and retrieval. These impressions were processed for SEM analysis, and the recordings evaluated for cracks and marginal chipping.


RESULTS
In general, extracted teeth showed significantly more cracks and chipping than cadaver teeth. Lowering the ultrasonic power from medium to low intensity resulted in equal scores for cracks on extracted teeth and for chipping on cadaver teeth, in higher scores for cracks on cadavers and in lower scores for chipping on extracted teeth. Complete cracks and cracks originating from the root surface occurred only in extracted teeth.


CONCLUSIONS
The number of cracks and degree of chipping caused by ultrasonic root-end preparation was higher on extracted teeth than on cadaver teeth. Lowering the ultrasonic power from medium to low intensity cannot be recommended as it resulted in more cracks and equal chipping on cadaver teeth. Investigation of techniques and materials should be conducted in situ and not on extracted teeth.
De Bruyne
M A A
MA
Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontology, Dental School, Ghent University, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium. mieke.debruyne@ugent.be
De Moor
R J G
RJ
D001047:Apicoectomy / Q000009:adverse effects; D001641:Bicuspid; D002102:Cadaver; D003481:Cuspid; D003804:Dentin / Q000293:injuries / Q000648:ultrastructure; D006801:Humans; D007180:Incisor; D008334:Mandible; D008437:Maxilla; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D016628:Replica Techniques; D012184:Retrograde Obturation; D018915:Root Canal Preparation / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D016369:Smear Layer; D019227:Tooth Apex / Q000293:injuries / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D014081:Tooth Extraction; D014464:Ultrasonic Therapy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*