| dc.description.abstract | The elective treatment in teeth that their first treatment has been failed is non-surgical re-treatment. But in some cases because of some reasons this type of treatment failes, too. In these situations, surgical retreatment is suggested. Traditionally, it includes root-end cavity preparation as a class I cavity at least 3 mm deep with parallel walls and retrograde filling with a material with appropriate sealing ability. Different methods and materials have been introduced for meeting this purpose. The aim of this In-vitro study was to compare apical microleakage of MTA and CEM cement in root-end cavities prepared by Ultrasonic and Er,Cr:YSGG laser. Materials & Methods: Seventy five maxillary centrals were selected. After cleaning, shaping and obturation of teeth, 3mm of root-end was resected. Teeth were randomly divided into four test groups [group 1 (ultrasonic-MTA) (n=15), group 2 (ultrasonic-CEM) (n=15), group 3 (laser- MTA) (n=15), and group 4 (laser-CEM) (n=15)] and two positive (n=10) (5 teeth by Laser and 5 teeth by Ultrosonic) and negative (n=5) controls. In Ultrasonic groups, kis-3D retrotip and in Laser groups 600?m laser tip and an output of 4w with 55% water and 65% air were used to prepare the cavity. Rhodamine B 2% dye penetration method was utilized for leakage study. Results: Mean microleakage in tested groups were as follows: Group 1 (Ultrsonic-MTA)= 1.951.64, group 2 (Ultrasonic-CEM)= 4.401.41, group 3 (Laser-MTA)= 3.621.39, and group 4 (Laser-CEM)= 7.132.27. The lowest and highest microleakage was seen in group 1 (ultrasonic-MTA) and control group, respectively. Among tested groups, the highest microleakage was seen in group 4 (laser-CEM). Conclusions: Based on analysis of this In-vitro study, microleakage in preparation with Ultrasonic and obturated with MTA were significantly lower than Laser prepared and CEM filled ones. | |
