Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
virtue of the reactive abilities of the nanoparticle dispersed in the material. If preliminary studies
are confirmed and successful in animal and human models, these “smart” materials would be able
to react to the local environment and/or insults. For example, a “smart” root-end filling material
may be loaded with an antimicrobial agent along with a pH-sensitive nanoparticle acting as a
“release gate.” Here in case of apical infection, the ensuing decrease in pH in the inflamed/infected
apical region could activate the release of drug from the root-end restoration to counter the infec-
tion. However, this would have local and systemic implications that would need to be thoroughly
investigated for clinical viability.
Another major impact of nanotechnology would be in the area of pulp regeneration. Original
and new studies have explored the use of scaffolds at the nanolevel that may eventually prove
applicable to therapies that will limit their effect to small areas of a tooth rather than to the whole
tooth. Results of the use on nanofibrous constructs as scaffolds is forward looking but they have to
be tested in animals more frequently if they are to be used in humans. The use of nanoparticles to
move growth factors into areas that require regeneration or in understanding signaling processes
need to be examined further. Production of a synthetic EMC is a powerful advance for cell-based
therapy development. Nanotechnology is at the door step of the research areas that have to be
explored. It is time that steps are taken to walk through the doorway.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Drs Sohel Shaikh, Syed Qutubuddin, Andre K. Mickel, Mohan Sankaran, and
Saeed Al Hassan for their continuous help and guidance in the nanotechnology research. The authors would
also like to thank all the students and residents who have worked on this project particularly Drs Sumesh
Potluri, Craig Duhaime, Mahmoud Modareszadeh, Ryan Reese, Clara Rhieu, Jeff Beacham, Jason Graves,
Andrew Langston, and Logan Hazard. Some of the research in the chapter is supported by a Presidential
Research Initiative (PRI) grant from the Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
References
[1] J. Rud, J.O. Andreasson, J.E. Jensen, A follow-up study of 1,000 cases treated by endodontic surgery, Int.
J. Oral Surg. 1 (1972) 215
228.
[2] L.Z. Strindberg, The dependence of the results of pulp therapy on certain factors, Acta Odontol. Scand.
14 (1956) 1
175.
[3] L.M. Lin, J.E. Skribner, P. Gaengler, Factors associated with endodontic treatment failures, J. Endod. 18
(1992) 625
627.
[4] H.A. Ray, M. Trope, Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the technical quality of
the root filling and the coronal restoration, Int. Endod. J. 28 (1995) 12
18.
[5] D.E. Vire, Failure of endodontically treated teeth: classification and evaluation, J. Endod. 17 (1991)
338
342.
[6] R.A. Rubinstein, S. Kim, Short-term observation of the results of endodontic surgery with the use of a
surgical operation microscope and super-EBA as a root-end filling material, J. Endod. 25 (1999) 43
48.
[7] T. Testori, M. Capelli, S. Milani, R.L. Weinstein, Success and failure in periradicular surgery: a longitudi-
nal retrospective analysis, Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 87 (1999) 493
498.
