Premium
Identification of root filling interfaces by microscopy and tomography methods
Author(s) -
Zaslansky P.,
Fratzl P.,
Rack A.,
Wu MK.,
Wesselink P. R.,
Shemesh H.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
international endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.988
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1365-2591
pISSN - 0143-2885
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01830.x
Subject(s) - identification (biology) , microscopy , tomography , root (linguistics) , materials science , computed tomography , biomedical engineering , medicine , radiology , pathology , biology , botany , linguistics , philosophy
Zaslansky P, Fratzl P, Rack A, Wu M‐K, Wesselink PR, Shemesh H. Identification of root filling interfaces by microscopy and tomography methods. International Endodontic Journal , 44 , 395–401, 2011. Abstract Aim To assess differences in observed cross‐sectional areas of root canals and filling materials, as imaged by three microscopy and two tomography methods. Methodology Six roots filled with laterally compacted Gutta‐percha and AH26 were scanned with phase‐contrast enhanced microtomography in a synchrotron facility. Reconstructed virtual slices were compared with sections of both wet and acrylic‐embedded roots, evaluated also by light and electron microscopy (EM) and laboratory‐based microtomography (μCT). The different contrasts of Gutta‐percha, voids, sealer and root dentine were identified and correlated. Inner canal border, outer Gutta‐percha rim and the external margin of a void were manually delineated, and the enclosed areas were repeatedly measured by three observers. Interobserver and interimaging method differences were tested by 2‐way anova with Bonferroni adjustments ( P < 0.05). Percentages of Gutta‐percha‐filled canal areas (PGP) were determined. Results Phase‐contrast enhanced microtomography revealed internal interfaces and detailed 3D volumes of accentuated voids as well as micrometre‐sized particles and gaps within the treated roots. Overestimates in the cross‐sectional areas were obtained by light microscopy, whereas underestimates were obtained by μCT and EM. Differences exceeded 40%; however, PGP values by all methods were within 5% for the same slice. Differences between observers were sometimes significant, but they were not method related (<3%). Conclusions Phase‐contrast enhanced microtomography is a powerful non‐destructive ex vivo investigation method for studying the interfaces within root canals and filling materials at a micrometre resolution. The method does not require damage‐prone sectioning/polishing during sample preparation procedures. Caution should be used when quantifying the extent of Gutta‐percha in root fillings by measurements using μCT, light and EM.