4.8 Review

Ability of new obturation materials to improve the seal of the root canal system: A review

Journal

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 1050-1063

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.11.015

Keywords

Leakage models; Root canal; Root filling materials; Sealability; Treatment outcome

Funding

  1. National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research [R01 DE015306-06]
  2. National Nature Science Foundation of China [81130078]
  3. National Key Basic Research Program of China [2012CB526704]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

New obturation biomaterials have been introduced over the past decade to improve the seal of the root canal system. However, it is not clear whether they have really produced a three-dimensional impervious seal that is important for reducing diseases associated with root canal treatment. A review of the literature was performed to identify models that have been employed for evaluating the seal of the root canal system. In vitro and in vivo models are not totally adept at quantifying the seal of root canals obturated with classic materials. Thus, one has to resort to clinical outcomes to examine whether there are real benefits associated with the use of recently introduced materials for obturating root canals. However, there is no simple answer because endodontic treatment outcomes are influenced by a host of other predictors that are more likely to take precedence over the influence of obturation materials. From the perspective of clinical performance, classic root filling materials have stood the test of time. Because many of the recently introduced materials are so new, there is not enough evidence yet to support their ability to improve clinical performance. This emphasizes the need to translate anecdotal information into clinically relevant research data on new biomaterials. (C) 2013 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available