Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with simulated invasive cervical resorption cavities, restored with different restorative materials, namely, conventional glass-ionomer cement (CGIC), resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), flowable composite (FC), and giomer. Methods: Sixty extracted human permanent maxillary central incisor teeth were assigned to six groups,which were, Group 1 (intact teeth, control), Group 2 (teeth with biomechanical preparation and resorption cavity), Group 3 (CGIC), Group 4 (RMGIC), Group 5 (FC), and Group 6 (giomer). Except for Group 1, other groups were subjected to endodontic treatment. Teeth of Group 2 were left unobturated and teeth of Groups 3–6 were obturated. A simulated resorption cavity was prepared labially in the specimens belonging to Groups 2–6 and restored with respective restorative materials. The specimens were subjected to compressive load until failure in an Instron testing machine and the load at failure was recorded in Newtons. Statistical Analysis: The data obtained were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA, pair-wise comparison was made with Tukey's multiple comparison test, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in the fracture resistance of intact teeth and endodontically treated teeth with simulated invasive cervical resorption cavities restored with different adhesive restorative materials. Among the restored teeth, there was no significant difference. Conclusion: Intact teeth were found to have the highest resistance to fracture followed by those restored with giomer, FC, RMGIC, and CGIC in that order.

Overinstrumentation during root canal treatment is one of the causes for iatrogenic enlargement of the root apex. It also leads to unwarranted coronal third widening, which results in thinning of the dentinal walls and makes the tooth susceptible to fracture. Another difficulty arises during control of obturation material within the canal. Such cases can be managed with obturation using mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) followed by of root reinforcement for the weakened dentinal walls. In the present case, a 5mm MTA plug was placed and root reinforcement was done with the help of Giomer. Postendodontic restoration was done with a cast post and a full coverage porcelain fused to a metal crown was cemented in place. How to cite this article Agrawal AM, Shenoy VU, Sumanthini MV, Bolli RV. Management of a Flared Root Canal with an Iatrogenically Widened Apex. J Contemp Dent 2016;6(3):200-207.

Achievement of a perfect apical seal in the case of a traumatized nonvital open apex tooth is one of the most important factors affecting its long-term success. It can be treated surgically by placing a retrofill or by a nonsurgical approach by apexification. Currently, apexification with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is the treatment of choice in such cases. Herein, due to large apical diameter, limiting the MTA within the canal space is challenging, making it imperative to use a suitable apical matrix. This case report demonstrates successful management of traumatized nonvital open apex teeth with MTA apexification using demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft apical matrix. How to cite this article Bolli RV, Sumanthini MV, Shenoy VU, Agrawal AM. Management of Traumatized Open Apex Teeth with Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Apexification and Demineralized Freeze-dried Bone Allograft as Apical Matrix. J Contemp Dent 2016;6(3):194-199.