No abstract

Clinicians often face dilemmas regarding the most appropriate way to restore a tooth following root canal treatment. Whilst there is established consensus on the importance of the ferrule effect on the predictable restoration of root filled teeth, other factors, such as residual tooth volume, tooth location, number of proximal contacts, timing of the definitive restoration and the presence of cracks, have been reported to influence restoration and tooth survival. The continued evolution of dental materials and techniques, combined with a trend towards more conservative endodontic‐restorative procedures, prompts re‐evaluation of the scientific literature. The aim of this literature review was to provide an updated overview of the existing clinical literature relating to the restoration of root filled teeth. An electronic literature search of the PubMed, Ovid (via EMBASE) and MEDLINE (via EMBASE) databases up to July 2020 was performed to identify articles that related the survival of root filled teeth and/or restoration type. The following and other terms were searched: restoration, crown, onlay, root canal, root filled, post, clinical, survival, success. Wherever possible, only clinical studies were selected for the literature review. Full texts of the identified articles were independently screened by two reviewers according to pre‐defined criteria. This review identifies the main clinical factors influencing the survival of teeth and restorations following root canal treatment in vivo and discusses the data related to specific restoration type on clinical survival.

This study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of a novel silver-citrate root canal irrigation solution (BioAKT) on smear layer removal, sealer penetration after root canal instrumentation and antibacterial activity. Single-root teeth were endodontically treated, sealed with an epoxi-amine resin sealer and irrigated using: Group I: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); Group II: silver-citrate solution (BioAKT); Group III: phosphate buffer solution (PBS); Group IV: 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Smear layer removal and silver deposition at the coronal, middle and apical portion of each canal were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Sealer penetration into dentinal tubules at coronal, middle and apical portion was assessed through dye-assisted confocal microscopy (CSM). Both SEM and CSM micrographs were evaluated by two examiners (κ = 0.86), who were blind to the irrigation regimens; scores were given according to the degree of penetration of the sealer. Data analysis included Pearson’s x2 and Sidak’s multiple comparisons. Dentin discs were polished and sterilized. Enterococcus faecalis biofilms were grown using a continuous-flow bioreactor under anaerobic conditions for 72 h. Specimens were irrigated with the tested solutions, and bacterial viability was assessed using a tetrazolium salt assay (MTT). Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA and Student’s post-hoc t-test (p < 0.05). BioAKT and EDTA were the most efficient solutions both in removing the smear layer and allowing sealer penetration. However, at the apical portion BioAKT performed significantly better compared to EDTA both in smear layer removal and sealer penetration (p < 0.05). BioAKT and NaOCl showed comparable antibacterial effect (p = 0.53). In conclusion, BioAKT represents a suitable smear layer removal agent, which allows for reliable sealer penetration at the apical portion of the root canal system and offers significant antibacterial properties.

This study aimed at evaluating the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) and fractographic features of dentine-bonded specimens created using universal adhesives applied in etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etching (SE) mode in combination with modern ion-releasing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC)-based materials after load cycling and artificial saliva aging. Two universal adhesives (FTB: Futurabond M+, VOCO, Germany; SCU: Scotchbond Universal, 3M Oral Care, USA) were used. Composite build-ups were made with conventional nano-filled composite (AURA, SDI, Australia), conventional resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Ionolux VOCO, Germany), or a (RMGIC)-based composite (ACTIVA, Pulpdent, USA). The specimens were divided in three groups and immersed in deionized water for 24 h, load-cycled (350,000 cycles; 3 Hz; 70 N), or load-cycled and cut into matchsticks and finally immersed for 8 months in artificial saliva (AS). The specimens were cut into matchsticks and tested for microtensile bond strength. The results were analyzed statistically using three-way ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD post hoc test (p < 0.05). Fractographic analysis was performed through stereomicroscope and FE-SEM. FTB showed no significant drop in bond strength after aging. Unlike the conventional composite, the two RMGIC-based materials caused no bond strength reduction in SCU after load-cycle aging and after prolonged aging (8 months). The SEM fractographic analysis showed severe degradation, especially with composite applied on dentine bonded with SCU in ER mode; such degradation was less evident with the two GIC-based materials. The dentine-bond longevity may be influenced by the composition rather than the mode of application (ER vs. SE) of the universal adhesives. Moreover, the choice of the restorative material may play an important role on the longevity of the finalrestoration. Indeed, bioactive GIC-based materials may contribute to maintain the bonding performance of simplified universal adhesives over time, especially when these bonding systems are applied in ER mode.