AIM: To assess the influence of cervical preparation on fracture susceptibility of roots. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During root canal instrumentation, the cervical portions were prepared with different taper instruments: I: no cervical preparation; II: #30/.08; III: #30/.10; IV: #70/.12. The specimens were sealed with the following filling materials (n = 8), A: unfilled; B: Endofill/gutta-percha; C: AH Plus/gutta-percha; D: Epiphany SE/Resilon. For the fracture resistance test, a universal testing machine was used at 1 mm per minute. RESULTS: anova demonstrated difference (P < 0.05) between taper instruments with a higher value for group I (205.3 ± 77.5 N) followed by II (185.2 ± 70.8 N), III (164.8 ± 48.9 N), and IV (156.7 ± 41.4 N). There was no difference (P > 0.05) between filling materials A (189.1 ± 66.3 N), B (186.3 ± 61.0 N), C (159.7 ± 69.9 N), and D (176.9 ± 55.2 N). CONCLUSIONS: Greater cervical wear using a #70/.12 file increased the root fracture susceptibility, and the tested filling materials were not able to restore resistance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zamin et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: