| Literature DB >> 34749689 |
Khoa Van Pham1, Thu Anh Tran2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) application in treating dens evaginatus affected teeth with apical lesions and open apices using haemostatic collagen membrane to prevent the apical extrusion of MTA.Entities:
Keywords: Apical plug; Collagen; MTA; Open apex; Root canal treatment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34749689 PMCID: PMC8573861 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01920-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 2.757
Fig. 1Individual bite registration impression in the 16-inch position device
Fig. 2Bite registration in place on the clinical setting
Fig. 3Hemostatic collagen Hemo-Klee
Fig. 4Collagen sponge in placement at the apical region of the root canal
Fig. 5ProRoot MTA (Dental Tulsa Specialties, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA)
Fig. 6Radiography of the second premolar after 3 months of treatment
Fig. 7Visiodent software interface for measurements of apical lesion dimension
Fig. 8Measurement of apical lesion dimension at closer look
Periodical clinical findings of the subjects
| Clinical findings | 3 months | 6 months | 9 months |
|---|---|---|---|
| Postoperative pain | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pain of palpation | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pain of percussion | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sinus tract | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Periodical radiographical parameter of the subjects (Mean ± Standard Deviation – mm)
| Radiographic parameters | Before treatment | 3 months | 6 months | 9 months |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dimension | 3.89 ± 0.97 | 2.06 ± 1.06 | 0.93 ± 1.21 | 0.42 ± 0.74 |
| Mean of reduction | N/A | 1.82 | 3.01 | 3.50 |
| P values | < 0.0001* | |||
| 0.0001† | ||||
| 0.0001† | ||||
*,†P < 0.05: significantly statistical differences
*Paired t-test
†Wilcoxon signed rank test
The Pearson correlations among variables
| Age | Sex | T0 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T6 | T9 | CDR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | PC | 1 | .326 | − .114 | − .069 | .000 | .091 | .118 | .107 | − .110 |
| Sig | .255 | .698 | .814 | 1.000 | .757 | .688 | .715 | .709 | ||
| Sex | PC | .326 | 1 | − .445 | − .435 | − .321 | − .157 | − .007 | − .072 | .174 |
| Sig | .255 | .111 | .120 | .263 | .592 | .982 | .807 | .552 | ||
| T0 | PC | − .114 | − .445 | 1 | .973* | .801* | .708* | .429 | .430 | − .427 |
| Sig | .698 | .111 | .000 | .001 | .005 | .126 | .125 | .128 | ||
| T1 | PC | − .069 | − .435 | .973* | 1 | .817* | .757* | .465 | .437 | − .490 |
| Sig | .814 | .120 | .000 | .000 | .002 | .094 | .119 | .075 | ||
| T2 | PC | .000 | − .321 | .801* | .817* | 1 | .860* | .719* | .663* | − .190 |
| Sig | 1.000 | .263 | .001 | .000 | .000 | .004 | .010 | .514 | ||
| T3 | PC | .091 | − .157 | .708* | .757* | .860* | 1 | .898* | .766* | − .490 |
| Sig | .757 | .592 | .005 | .002 | .000 | .000 | .001 | .075 | ||
| T6 | PC | .118 | − .007 | .429 | .465 | .719* | .898* | 1 | .895* | − .417 |
| Sig | .688 | .982 | .126 | .094 | .004 | .000 | .000 | .138 | ||
| T9 | PC | .107 | − .072 | .430 | .437 | .663* | .766* | .895* | 1 | − .303 |
| Sig | .715 | .807 | .125 | .119 | .010 | .001 | .000 | .292 | ||
| CDR | PC | − .110 | .174 | − .427 | − .490 | − .190 | − .490 | − .417 | − .303 | 1 |
| Sig | .709 | .552 | .128 | .075 | .514 | .075 | .138 | .292 |
PC Pearson Correlation, Sig. Significant 2-tailed, CDR Continue Development Root, T0 Lesion dimension before treatment, T1 Lesion dimension after 1 month, T2 Lesion dimension after 2 months, T3 Lesion dimension after 3 months, T6 Lesion dimension after 6 months, T9 Lesion dimension after 9 months
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)