Analyze Diet
Equine veterinary journal2005; 37(2); 133-136; doi: 10.2746/0425164054223840

In vitro comparison of three materials as apical sealants of equine premolar and molar teeth.

Abstract: Surgical endodontic therapy is a conservative dental technique used in horses with some degree of clinical success. Failure of this procedure can partially be explained by inadequate sealing of the root apices with resultant microleakage in the periapical area. Objective: To assess and compare in vitro sealing ability of 3 different dental restorative materials used as apical sealants during equine surgical endodontics. Methods: Thirty extracted equine cheek teeth were divided randomly into 3 groups and subjected to apicoectomy and apical sealing using 3 materials: reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol cement; intermediate restorative material (IRM); a resin-modified glass ionomer; and amalgam. After apical sealing, the teeth were submerged in a solution of Procion Brilliant Cresyl Blue stain for a period of 7 days. The teeth were then washed, embedded in resin, sectioned and assessed microscopically for dye leakage around the apical restorations. Results: Although the materials proved effective as apical sealants, some dye leakage was encountered in all 3 groups with no statistical difference (P = 0.114). Conclusions: IRM, a resin-modified glass ionomer and amalgam all showed comparative features as apical sealants when used in vitro in equine teeth. IRM is currently regarded as the superior material in clinical situations due to its ease of handling and lesser sensitivity to environmental moisture during placement compared to the other 2 materials.
Publication Date: 2005-03-23 PubMed ID: 15779625DOI: 10.2746/0425164054223840Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Comparative Study
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This study investigates the sealing efficiency of three dental restorative materials (reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol cement, intermediate restorative material, and amalgam) used to plug the root ends of horse teeth during endodontic procedures. The study finds that all three materials work comparably in the lab scenario, but the intermediate restorative material is considered superior due to its ease of utilization and better resistance against environmental moisture.

Study Design and Methodology

  • The research was carried out in a controlled in vitro setting. This means that the tests were performed outside the living organisms, using teeth that had been extracted from horses.
  • A total of thirty teeth were obtained and randomly distributed into three groups. Each group represented a type of sealing material, namely, the reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol cement, intermediate restorative material, and amalgam.
  • The horse teeth underwent apicoectomy, a surgical removal of the root tip, followed by sealing with the assigned restorative material.
  • Thereafter, each tooth was steeped in Procion Brilliant Cresyl Blue stain for a full week. This was done to detect any leakage around the restorative seal by visualizing the dye penetration.

Observations and Results

  • All three materials used for sealing the root ends demonstrated dye leakage to varying degrees, indicating they weren’t completely sealed.
  • However, the findings did not reveal a statistical difference between the materials in terms of their sealing ability (P = 0.114). This indicates that all three materials performed comparably well and there was no significant difference in their effectiveness.

Conclusions and Recommendations

  • While all three materials showed similar performance in terms of in vitro sealing ability, the study highlights the practical advantages of the Intermediate Restorative Material (IRM) over the other two.
  • IRM is easier to handle during clinical application and exhibits lesser sensitivity towards environmental moisture, making it a favorable choice for clinical situations.
  • The study contributes to the existing knowledge about the effectiveness of different sealing materials used in equine dental surgeries and helps guide more informed decisions in the field of equine dentistry.

Cite This Article

APA
Steenkamp G, Olivier-Carstens A, van Heerden WF, Crossley DA, Boy SC. (2005). In vitro comparison of three materials as apical sealants of equine premolar and molar teeth. Equine Vet J, 37(2), 133-136. https://doi.org/10.2746/0425164054223840

Publication

ISSN: 0425-1644
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 37
Issue: 2
Pages: 133-136

Researcher Affiliations

Steenkamp, G
  • Department of Companion Animal Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, School of Dentistry, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa.
Olivier-Carstens, A
    van Heerden, W F P
      Crossley, D A
        Boy, S C

          MeSH Terms

          • Animals
          • Apicoectomy / veterinary
          • Biocompatible Materials
          • Composite Resins
          • Dental Amalgam / adverse effects
          • Dental Amalgam / pharmacology
          • Dental Leakage / diagnosis
          • Dental Leakage / veterinary
          • Dentistry / methods
          • Dentistry / veterinary
          • Endodontics
          • Evaluation Studies as Topic
          • Glass Ionomer Cements / adverse effects
          • Glass Ionomer Cements / pharmacology
          • Horses
          • In Vitro Techniques
          • Methylmethacrylates / adverse effects
          • Methylmethacrylates / pharmacology
          • Pit and Fissure Sealants / adverse effects
          • Pit and Fissure Sealants / chemistry
          • Pit and Fissure Sealants / pharmacology
          • Random Allocation
          • Resin Cements / adverse effects
          • Resin Cements / pharmacology
          • Root Canal Filling Materials / adverse effects
          • Root Canal Filling Materials / pharmacology
          • Triazines
          • Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement / adverse effects
          • Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement / pharmacology

          Citations

          This article has been cited 0 times.