Resumo Este relato de caso descreve o tratamento e acompanhamento de um molar inferior em uma jovem de 18 anos com cisto periapical. Assim, torna-se importante saber quais opções devemos tomar diante de uma situação clínica que não podemos resolver pelos métodos convencionais, e quais técnicas e abordagens temos para alcançar o sucesso do tratamento. Este caso mostrou o plano de tratamento e acompanhamento, por meio de imagens de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico (TCFC), de um molar inferior previamente tratado com grande abscesso periapical e lesão cística, no qual, a primeira abordagem do plano de tratamento foi fazer o retratamento endodôntico. Durante o preparo químico-mecânico a presença de exsudato purulento intracanal permanente impossibilitou a secagem dos canais, impedindo a obturação do sistema de canais radiculares. Devido a essa situação clínica, foi realizada abordagem cirúrgica com a intenção de reduzir esse exsudato permanente e executar uma técnica de descompressão. Após um ano de acompanhamento, os achados clínicos e radiográficos indicaram processo de reparo.

Abstract This case describes the treatment and follow-up of a mandibular molar in an 18-year-old female with a periapical cyst. Thus, it becomes important to know which options should we take when faced with a clinical situation that we cannot resolve through conventional methods, and which techniques and approaches we have to achieve treatment success. This case showed the treatment plan and follow-up, by the use of CBCT images, from a previously treated mandibular molar with a large periapical abscess and cystic lesion, in which, the first treatment plan approach was to make the endodontic retreatment. During the chemo-mechanical preparation the presence of permanent intracanal purulent exudate made it impossible to dry the canals, impeding obturation of the root canal system. Due to this clinical situation, a surgical approach was performed with the intention of reduce this permanent exudate and to execute a decompression technique. Clinical findings, periapical radiographs and cone beam computed tomographic, indicated almost complete resolution of the radiolucency, after a one-year follow-up.

Abstract To compare the shaping ability of different single-file systems in the preparation of mesial curved canals of mandibular molars using micro-CT technology. Fifteen mesial roots of mandibular molars with two independent and curved canals (n = 30) were selected, scanned at a resolution of 26.7 μm anatomically matched, and distributed into three groups (n = 10), according to the preparation system: WaveOne 25.08, Reciproc 25.08, and OneShape 25.06. A final micro-CT scanning was performed, data sets were registered with their respective counterparts, and compared regarding the three-dimensional (volume, surface area, and structure model index - SMI) and two-dimensional (perimeter, area, roundness, major and minor diameters) parameters, as well as, canal transportation, using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests (α = 5%). Overall, no difference was observed between groups regarding area, perimeter, volume, surface area, and canal transportation (p > 0.05). Within group, no canal transportation was significantly higherobserved in the apical third (0.10 ± 0.05 mm) compared to coronal (0.08±0.040 mm) and middle (0.07 ± 0.03 mm) thirds (p < 0.05). Structure model index (SMI) was statistically higher after preparation with OneShape instrument (0.36 ± 0.26) compared to other systems (p < 0.05). Within the parameters of this study, similar shaping ability was observed in the preparation of mesial curved root canals of mandibular molars with Reciproc, OneShape and WaveOne systems.

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the effect of ultrasonic and sonic activation on physicochemical properties of AH Plus, MTA Fillapex, ADSeal, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and GuttaFlow 2 sealers. Methodology: Three experimental groups were formed: no activation (NA), ultrasonic activation (UA), and sonic activation (SA). The sealers were manipulated according to the manufacturers’ instructions. A 3-mL syringe was adapted to receive 1 mL of sealer. Activation was performed with a 20/.01 ultrasonic insert (20 s/1W) in the UA group. A size 35.04 sonic tip was used (20 s/10,000 cycles/min-1) in the SA group. The molds for physicochemical analysis were filled and evaluated according to ANSI/ADA specification no. 57: setting time (ST), flow (FL), dimensional change (DC), solubility (SB), and radiopacity (RD). Statistical analysis was performed by Kruskal-Wallis, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey's tests (P<0.05). Results: Regarding ST, only AH Plus and GuttaFlow 2 in the NA group met the ANSI/ADA standards. All FL values were greater than 20 mm in diameter, as determined by ANSI/ADA. The tested sealers and protocols did not comply with the ANSI/ADA standards for DC. As for SB, only MTA Fillapex, regardless of the activation protocol, did not follow the ANSI/ADA standards. All of the investigated sealers, regardless of the activation protocol, presented radiographic density higher than 3 mm Al, as proposed by ANSI/ADA. Conclusions: UA and SA promoted changes in the physicochemical properties of the evaluated root canal sealers, mainly in ST and F. Thus, it is important to evaluate the physicochemical properties of endodontic sealers associated with activation techniques prior to clinical application in order to determine whether the properties follow the parameters set by ANSI/ADA, ensuring safety and quality of root canal filling.

Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of radiation therapy on root canal sealer push-out bond strength (BS) to dentin and the sealer/dentin interface after different final irrigation solutions (NaOCl, EDTA, and chitosan). Sixty-four maxillary canines were distributed into two groups (n=30): non-irradiated and irradiated with 60 Gy. Canals were prepared with Reciproc-R50 and subdivided (n=10) for final irrigation (NaOCl, EDTA, chitosan) and filled. Three dentin slices were obtained from each root third. The first slice of each third was selected for BS evaluation, and the failure mode was determined by stereomicroscopy. SEM analysis of the sealer-dentin interface was performed in the remaining slices. Two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α=0.05) were used. Lower BS (P<0.0001) was obtained after irradiation (2.07±0.79 MPa), regardless of the final irrigation solution used. The NaOCl group (P<0.001) had the lowest BS in the irradiated (1.68±0.72) and non-irradiated (2.39±0.89) groups, whereas the EDTA (irradiated: 2.14±0.77 and non-irradiated: 3.92±1.54) and chitosan (irradiated: 2.37±0.73 and non-irradiated: 3.51±1.47) groups demonstrated a higher BS (P<0.05). The highest values were observed in the coronal third (3.17±1.38) when compared to the middle (2.74±1.36) and apical ones (2.09±0.97)(P<0.0001). There were more cohesive failures and more gaps in irradiated specimens, regardless of the final solution. The present study showed that radiation was associated with a decrease in BS, regardless of the final solution used, whereas chitosan increased BS in teeth subjected to radiation therapy.

Abstract To assess the physicochemical properties of AH Plus, GuttaFlow 2, GuttaFlow BioSeal, and MM Seal, five samples of each root canal sealer were evaluated to determine their setting time (ST), dimensional change (DC), solubility (SL), flow (FL), and radiopacity (RD) according to American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) Specification 57. The distilled and deionized water obtained from the SL test were subjected to atomic absorption spectrometry to observe the presence of Ca2+, K+, and Na+ ions. Statistical analysis was performed by using one-way ANOVA and Tukey–Kramer tests (p < 0.05). The following results were obtained: ST (min) (AH Plus 463.6 ± 13.22; GuttaFlow 2 24.35 ± 2.78; GuttaFlow Bioseal 17.4 ± 0.55; MM Seal 47.60 ± 4.39), DC (%) (AH Plus 0.06 ± 0.12; GuttaFlow 2 −26.06 ± 1.24; GuttaFlow Bioseal 2.10 ± 1.47; MM Seal 8.47 ± 2.41), SL (%) (AH Plus 0.41 ± 0.21; GuttaFlow 2 5.13 ± 4.11; GuttaFlow Bioseal 3.03 ± 1.05; MM Seal 0.94 ± 0.17), FL (mm) (AH Plus 36.42 ± 0.40; GuttaFlow 2 36.44 ± 0.05; GuttaFlow Bioseal 35.4 ± 0.03; MM Seal 52.75 ± 0.60), and RD (mmAl) (AH Plus 7.52 ± 1.59; GuttaFlow 2 6.85 ± 0.14; GuttaFlow Bioseal 7.02 ± 0.18; MM Seal 3.32 ± 0.90). ST, DC, SL, FL, and RD showed statistical differences among the root canal sealers (p < 0.05). As AH Plus showed the lowest DC and SL values (p < 0.05), the findings indicate that this sample is the only sealer conforming to ANSI/ADA standards.