There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to subject 2 carrier-based root filling products to
a 4-month microbial challenge in a dog model with histologic markers to assess periapical
inflammation and bacterial penetration of the 2 filling materials. Histologic evidence
of bacterial penetration and periapical inflammation were the outcome parameters used
to compare the products.
Teeth were aseptically prepared and then filled with carrier-based Resilon (RealSeal
1 [RS-1], n = 25) or with carrier-based gutta-percha (Thermafil, n = 25) and were
left exposed for 4 months. The first control group received a coronal seal over either
RS-1 or Thermafil root fillings (n = 8). A second control group was instrumented and
left completely empty (n = 8).
Histologic evidence of periapical inflammation was observed in 29% of the Thermafil
group and in 9% of the RS-1 group. This difference was only significant when controlling
for a possible tooth position effect on inflammation presence (P < .05). Histologic
evidence of bacterial penetration was present in 9% of the RS-1 group and in 70% of
the Thermafil group. The difference in penetration rates between RS-1 and Thermafil
was statistically significant when controlling for any dog or tooth position effects
on bacterial penetration (P < .001). Furthermore, there was a statistically significant
correlation between histologic evidence of inflammation and histologic evidence of
infection (P = .002).
RS-1 appeared to resist bacterial penetration more effectively than Thermafil under
the conditions of this study.