The aim of this report is to (i) review the current literature on the status of root filled teeth, (ii) analyse the most important factors in decision-making, (iii) discuss the current restorative concepts, and (iv) classify both the evidence and clinical practice in a way that seeks to be clear, understandable and helpful for clinicians. Restoration of root filled teeth represents a challenge for the clinician and remains a controversial subject. The guidelines describe a new classification that is drawn from evidence presented in the literature and also from clinical expertise-based reviews. It describes five categories of teeth.

Root fractures occur more frequently in fully erupted permanent teeth with closed apices in which the completely formed root is solidly supported in the bone and periodontium. The consequences can be complex because of combined damage to the pulp, dentine, cementum, bone, and periodontium. Management of horizontal root fractures and lateral luxation depends on several factors, with the result that various clinical modalities have been suggested. This case report describes the treatment and 10-year follow-up of two maxillary central incisors, one with horizontal root fracture and the other with lateral luxation, treated with mineral trioxide aggregate and root canal treatment, respectively.

To determine whether the accuracy of two-implant model impressions taken with optical scanners was inferior to that of those taken with elastomeric materials. Materials and MethodsImpressions of a resin reference model with two almost parallel implants were taken using three elastomeric impressions (closed tray technique, open tray nonsplinted technique and open tray splinted technique) and scanned with four optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam, 3M True Definition Scanner, 3Shape TRIOS3 and Carestream CS 3600). STL files of the different methods were superimposed and analyzed with control software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems) to determine the mean deviation between scans. ResultsCompared to elastomeric impressions, optical impressions showed a significantly improved mean precision. TRIOS3 and CS3600 showed a significantly improved mean trueness compared to that of closed tray, CEREC Omnicam and TrueDefinition. All methods showed a certain degree of implant rotation over their axes, which was significantly higher in the closed tray and the open tray nonsplinted techniques. ConclusionsOptical impressions, taken under these in vitro conditions, showed improved accuracy compared with that of elastomeric impressions.

No abstract

No abstract