Adenomatoid odontogenic tumour (AOT) is a rare tumour of odontogenic origin with distinct clinicopathological appearance but is often clinically misdiagnosed as a cyst. The most common site is the anterior maxilla in the canine region. We present here two cases, one at its commonest location in the maxillary canine while the other is at the uncommon location of the anterior mandible. Its clinical features of painless slow growing swelling, association with impacted tooth and radiographic appearance of well defined predominantly radiolucent lesion are overlapping with other oral pathologies like dentigerous cyst, radicular cyst, calcifying odontogenic cyst, calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumour, unicystic ameloblastoma etc. One must be aware and updated with the variation in appearance of AOT. Encapsulation of tumour causes less cumbersome enucleation of the tumour, a successful treatment as it reduces the chances of recurrence.
Background:
Irrigants were required to eliminate the microbes and debris from the intraradicular space and must have direct contact with the entire root canal wall. Therefore, different irrigation methods have been proposed to deliver the irrigant as close as possible to the remote areas of the root canal.
Aim:
The aim of the present study is to evaluate the cleaning efficacy of single-beveled needle, side-vented needle, endovac, and endo-irrigator plus in the removal of debris from apical third of root canal by Scanning Electron Microscope.
Materials and Methods:
Forty single-rooted freshly extracted human permanent mandibular premolars were collected. Root canals were cleaned and instrumented till X2 (25/06) with rotary Protaper Next at working length 1 mm short of the apex. Teeth were randomly divided into four equal groups: Group 1 (
n
= 10): Endovac, Group 2 (
n
= 10): Endo irrigator plus, Group 3 (
n
= 10): Side-vented needle, and Group 4 (
n
= 10): Single-beveled needle. Irrigation was done with 5.25% NaOCl, followed by 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Samples were sectioned and examined under SEM at apical levels.
Statistical Analysis:
Analysis of variance followed by Tukey's
post hoc
test was performed.
Results:
The level of debris removal efficacy is as follows: Endovac > Endo-irrigator plus > Side-vented needle ~ Single-beveled needle.
Conclusion:
Endovac showed the maximum number of debris removal and has better cleaning efficacy in the apical areas of the root canal, followed by Endo irrigator plus, Side-vented needle and Single-beveled needle.
BACKGROUNDThe ultimate goal of root canal treatment is to seal the root canal both apically and coronally through obturation and restoration in order to prevent recontamination of the disinfected canals. Even after root canal treatment, there can be problems due to failure. The major causes of root canal failure are persistence of microbes or entry of microbes through coronal or apical leakage. If the reinfection occurs, in most of the cases surgical intervention is required followed by retrograde filling to achieve hermetic apical seal. Various retrograde filling materials have been advocated but MTA was found to be more appropriate as the literature suggested. However, Biodentine has also been used since last few years. The aim of the retrograde filling is to seal the canal in order to prevent passage of bacteria or their toxins from the canal space into peri-radicular tissues and vice versa. MTA and Biodentine has been shown to have a biocompatible nature and have excellent potential in endodontic use.The aim of this article is to comparatively review the properties such as biocompatibility, sealing ability, antibacterial effect and tissue response in both MTA and Biodentine as root-end filling material.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.