No abstract

Background Intravascular papillary endothelial hyperplasia is an unusual vascular lesion characterized by the proliferation of endothelial cells. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and general features of this lesion. Methods Biopsy records of three oral pathology services were reviewed for intravascular papillary endothelial hyperplasia cases from 1959 to 2020. In addition, a systematic review of case reports and case series was carried out in eight electronic databases. Results Of the 65 205 retrieved cases, 20 (0.03%) were diagnosed as intravascular papillary endothelial hyperplasia. Mean patient age was 46.55 years, and females (12 cases/60%) were more affected. The lower lip (9 cases/47.36%) was the most commonly affected site, and the lesions were generally asymptomatic (7 cases/63.63%). Clinically, 90% of the lesions presented (18 cases) as a nodule, with a mean size of 1.13 cm. The clinical diagnostic hypotheses most frequently raised were mucocele (6 cases/37.50%) and hemangioma (5 cases/31.25%). An excisional biopsy was chosen in all cases for treatment. Forty‐nine studies of the systematic review were included, yielding 105 cases. The literature showed similarity in all variables. Conclusion Despite the uncommon frequency, clinicians and oral pathologists should familiarize themselves with the similarities between intravascular papillary endothelial hyperplasia and some other lesions in terms of clinical and histological features.

No abstract

Introduction: The coronary shield, known as the intra-orifice barrier, is defined as a placement of a restorative material at the entrance of the root canal orifice after 3mm of gutta-percha and aiming to increase the resistance of the tooth to the fracture in addition to preventing coronary infiltration. Objective: to report and discuss the existing data in the dental literature regarding the materials available to perform the intra-orifice barrier in endodontically treated teethand to indicate if the desired coronary shield is really achievable. Literature review: The materials analyzed were composite resin, glass ionomer cement (CIV), zinc oxide based materials, silver amalgam and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). Results: composites of resin and bulkfill / flow in their results when compared with other materials like MTA. Silver amalgam, zinc oxide-based materials, and CIV do not result in terms of intra-orifice barrier. MTA was favorable in relation to microleakage, but did not reinforce a root structure. Conclusion: No material restorer is able to completely protect the infiltrations.However, as conventional composite resins and bulk-fill flow are the materials with the best properties associated with satisfactory results, however, the need for scientific studies comparing the materials used as an intra-orifice barrier.

A blindagem coronária, também conhecida como barreira intraorifício, é definida como a colocação de um material restaurador na entrada do orifício do canal radicular imediatamente após a remoção de 3 mm de guta-percha e cimento e tem como finalidade aumentar a resistência do dente à fratura, além de prevenir a infiltração coronária. Objetivo: Relatar e discutir os dados existentes na literatura odontológica a respeito dos materiais disponíveis para realização da barreira intraorifício em dentes tratados endodonticamente e apontar se a desejada blindagem coronária é realmente possível de ser alcançada. Revisão de literatura: Os materiais analisados foram resina composta, cimento de ionômero de vidro (CIV), materiais à base de óxido de zinco, amálgama de prata e agregado de trióxido mineral (MTA). Resultados: Resina composta e bulk-fill flow mostraram melhores resultados em comparação com outros materiais, como MTA. O amálgama de prata, os materiais à base de óxido de zinco e o CIV não evidenciaram bons resultados como barreira intraorifício. O MTA mostrou-se favorável com relação a microinfiltração, porém não reforça a estrutura radicular. Conclusão: Nenhum material restaurador é capaz de prevenir completamente infiltrações, porém as resinas compostas convencional e bulk-fill flow são os materiais com melhores propriedades associadas a resultados satisfatórios. No entanto são necessários estudos clínicos comparando os materiais utilizados como barreira intraorificio.