Many materials have been evaluated for use as root-end fillings in the event conventional root canal treatment is unsuccessful. No material has been found to meet all the ideal criteria for root-end fillings, and microleakage is a problem. A study by Gondim, et al evaluated the sealing ability of 3 root-end filling materials: Super-EBA, IRM, and ProRoot MTA. The root-end fillings were subjected to 3 finishing techniques: ball burnishing alone or ball burnishing with a final smoothing using either a 30-fluted tungsten carbide finishing bur or a Zekra carbide 28-mm bur. The study involved 81 root-end cavities prepared ultrasonically in human canine teeth. After filling and finishing procedures, the samples were as-sessed for microleakage. The study found that ProRoot MTA had significantly less microleakage than Super-EBA and IRM root-end fillings. The finishing technique did not affect the incidence of microleakage among any of the materials. The favorable results with MTA may be related to its good marginal adaptation. No material was able to prevent microleakage, which emphasizes the importance of eradicating irritants coming from the root canal system.
(Source: Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology, Vol. 99, No. 6, 2005).
