4.5 Article

The Effect of Long-term Dressing with Calcium Hydroxide on the Fracture Susceptibility of Teeth

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 464-469

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.09.018

Keywords

Calcium hydroxide; cervical root fractures; fracture strength; immature teeth; pH

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Calcium hydroxide has been widely used to treat immature teeth to achieve periodontal healing and to promote the formation of an apical barrier. However, retrospective clinical studies have shown a high incidence of cervical root fractures with long-term calcium hydroxide dressing. The alkalinity of calcium hydroxide has been suggested to weaken the root. In vitro studies using ovine teeth show conflicting results on fracture strength of dentine, although different commercial products may have influenced the results. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 2 commercial products used in prior studies (Calasept Plus and UltraCal XS), as well as a new product (Calmix) that uses a nonaqueous vehicle that allows for a higher pH, on the fracture strength of dentine over time. Methods: A total of 330 lamb incisor teeth were collected and the canals prepared so that 3 commercial calcium hydroxide products as well as a positive control of pure calcium hydroxide slurry that filled the root canal from the open apex and a negative control of saline was tested. The teeth were loaded until fracture with a universal testing machine at time points 0, 3, 6, and 9 months and the force to fracture was calculated. The data were analyzed with Friedman analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney t tests. Results: No statistical differences were observed between the different calcium hydroxide products and the negative controls. Conclusions: Thin and fragile roots could be the cause of fracture rather than the calcium hydroxide dressing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available