Aim:The study aims to evaluate and compare total gap surface area formed after restoration of class II cavities with Filtek Z350 and P60 at room temperature, 37°C and 54°C.Materials and Methods:Thirty extracted maxillary and mandibular molars were taken and divided into six groups of five teeth each. Standardized class II cavities were made and were restored with Filtek Z350 and P60, both at room temperature, 37°C and 54°C. Group 1(a) was restored with Filtek Z350 at room temperature, Group 1(b) with Filtek Z350 at 37°C and Group 1(c) with Filtek Z350 at 54°C. Group 2(a) was restored with P60 at room temperature, Group 2(b) with P60 at 37°C and Group 2(c) with P60 at 54°C. After storing the samples in distilled water at room temperature for 48 hours, longitudinal sectioning was done to obtain tooth restoration interface. The interfaces were then examined under compound light microscope with digital output and analyzed using Image J analysis software.Results:The results demonstrated better adaptation and less total gap area formation at 54°C as compared to room temperature and 37°C.Conclusions:Based on the results of this study, it is suggested that use of P60 is better suited for posterior restorations at 54°C as compared to Filtek Z350 universal nanohybrid at room temperature.

The purpose of these case reports is to emphasize the importance of knowledge regarding the root canal morphology and current diagnostic aids one should have as both of these important factors going to affect the prognosis of the endodontic treatment. These two case reports describe the maxillary and mandibular first molars with multiple canals. After clinical and radiographic diagnosis, additional help of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) of mandibular molar has been taken to evaluate the morphology and canal pattern; while maxillary molar was evaluated using CBCT scan to evaluate the canal configuration and obturation. In CBCT evaluation, the mandibular molar was diagnosed with six separated canals with three mesial and three distal canals and with radix paramolaris and radix entomolaris. The maxillary molar had five canals with three mesiobuccal (MB) canals. Both molars were instrumented with conventional hand and rotary file systems and obturated by conventional lateral compaction method. The axial images from CBCT show Vertucci Type VIII canal pattern in both roots of first mandibular molars and in MB root of maxillary first molar Sert and Bayirli Type XVIII canal configuration and no accessory canal in distobuccal and palatal root. With the recent innovations in diagnostic and operating aids, we can come across many variations in the root canal morphology of both mandibular and maxillary teeth, especially multi-rooted one (i.e., molars), and the knowledge of which leads to successful endodontic treatment with an excellent prognosis.

This in vitro study intend to compare the cleaning effectiveness of Protaper universal sequence with reciprocating F2 Protaper and single rotary file One shape. Materials and method: 30 extracted human 1st mandibular molars were chosen for the analysis. Three NiTi file systems were used for mechanical preparation, ProTaper full sequence in rotary motion, single F2 Protaper file used in reciprocating motion, and One shape single file used in a circular motion. Irrigation was carried out after each instrument use using 5 ml of 5% NaOCl followed by normal saline. The root canal surface was evaluated at three different areas (coronal, middle and apical thirds) using Scanning Electron Microscopy. Debris and the Smear layer were evaluated. Data were analyzed statistically using the Friedman test and Kruskal-Wallis test (p ≤ 0.05). Results: A statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was observed in the debris score of the Protaper universal group when the 3 thirds of the root were compared. Intergroup comparisons confirmed a statistically significant difference at the coronal and apical third of the roots when debris scores were evaluated. Intragroup comparison for the smear layer demonstrated a statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) at all the 3 levels of the radicular canal for the 3 groups studied. Intergroup comparisons revealed a statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) in the middle and apical 1/3rd when the smear layer was evaluated. Conclusion: The Protaper full sequence group provided better results than Single F2 ProTaper and One shape groups when debris and smear layer removal was investigated.

No abstract

No abstract