Information on the presence or absence of inter-radicular radiolucencies (codes 0 and 1 for exposure/developing; codes 0 and 1 for furcation visibility) could be determined for 110 teeth allocated to Control restorations (85%) and 81 Hall PMC teeth (63%).
This should be assessed using rigid instruments (e.g. the ends of dental mirror handles) and a score allocated to affected teeth.
No tetrapod has ever allocated all of their teeth to such a distal position, much less doing so with an elaborate tooth battery.
Next, all teeth were allocated into seven groups (n = 10) according to the waiting time after bleaching for placing the RC: immediately (0 h), 24 h, 3, 7, 14 and 28 days (d).
PMCs were placed using the Hall Technique on 128 out of 132 teeth (97%) allocated to the intervention arm, with the fit being assessed by the GDPs as satisfactory for 124 of the 128 teeth (97%).
The teeth were randomly allocated into 2 groups (n = 40) according to the type of endodontic sealer: zinc oxide eugenol-based sealer (Endofill, Dentsply Maillefer); and Epoxy resin-based sealer (Sealer 26, Dentsply Maillefer) (Fig. 1; Table 2).
The teeth were randomly allocated to four experimental groups including cold LCT and warm techniques (McSpadden Thermomecanical compaction, Continous Wave and Thermafil).
The 80 teeth were then divided into four groups of 20 teeth; each group was allocated to receive a different laminate surface treatment.
Each surface obtained from the same tooth was randomly allocated to one of three experimental groups: CPP-ACP, CPP-ACP-F, and control group.
All teeth specimens were randomly allocated into two groups according to the substrate to be tested: enamel or dentin.
