Endod Dent Traumatol 1994; 10: 91-93

Printed in Denmark . All rights reserved

Copyright

Munksgaard

1994

Endodontics &
Dental Traumatology
ISSN 0109-2502

Moisture content of vital vs endodontically

treated teeth
Papa J, Cain C, Messer HH. Moisture content of vital vs endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol 1994;
10: 91-93. Munksgaard, 1994.
Abstract - The moisture content of vital and endodontically
treated teeth was compared in matched pairs of contralateral
human teeth extracted for prosthodontic reasons. Samples from
each tooth were weighed then placed in an oven to remove the
unbound water from the dentin. Weighing was carried out daily
until a constant weight was achieved for three days. The moisture
content was then calculated and expressed as a percentage of the
initial sample weight. It was found that vital dentin had a
moisture content of 12.35% whilst dentin from endodontically
treated teeth had a moisture content of 12.10%. These results
indicated that there was no significant difierence in the moisture
content between endodonticallv treated teeth and vital teeth.

Endodontically treated teeth are widely considered

to be more brittle than vital teeth (1-3). This increased brittleness has been explained by a decrease
in the moisture content of dentin following loss of
pulp vitality (4). The study of Heifer et al. (4) is
based on teeth obtained from one dog, with pulps
extirpated at intervals up to 26 weeks before extraction. The dentin of pulpless teeth is reported to
have 9% lower moisture content than the dentin of
contralateral vital teeth, with the difference attributable to loss of free water. The findings of that study
are open to question, since teeth were stored in
saliva before analysis of water content. x\lso, the
sttidy did not show a progressive loss of moisture
with increasing time after pulp extirpation.
Several recent studies have questioned whether
pulpless teeth are in fact more brittle than vital
teeth, based on a range of biomechanical properties
and biological features such as the collagen crosslink
content of dentin (5-7). In a previous study we
have compared the strength and toughness of dentin
of teeth obtained from patients undergoing multiple
extractions fbr prosthodontic reasons (7). Each endodontically treated tooth was compared with its
vital contralateral tooth; in all cases selected the
endodontic treatment was considered successful and
h teeth were extracted only for prosthodontic rea-

J. Papa, C. Cain, H. H. Messer

Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of
Melbourne, Australia.

Key words: teetfi: dentin, dentln brittleness.

Joe Papa, Research) Officer, Scfiool of Dental
Science, University of Melbourne, 711 Elizabetfi
Street, Melbourne, Australia 3000.
Accepted September 14, 1993

sons. In view of the lack of difference in biomechanical properties that we found in that study, we have
now extended the study to re-examine the question
of a difference in moisture content.
Material and methods
Twenty-three matched pairs of endodontically
treated and vital contra lateral teeth were examined.
Prior to extraction, radiographs were examined and
teeth presenting with a periapical radiolucency
were rejected, thus only sound teeth and those with
successful endodontic therapy were included in the
study. A wide distribution of anterior and posterior
teeth was included. At the time of extraction the
patients' age and time since endodontic treatment
were recorded. Immediately upon extraction, the
teeth were tightly wrapped in aluminium foil and
placed into a sealed plastic tube to minimise moisture loss.
The teeth were then processed individually, remaining wrapped and sealed until required. All
sampling procedures were completed as rapidly as
possible after extraction (generally within 10 min).
The order of processing (vital or endodontic) was
randomised to eliminate any potential bias from
moisture loss during storage. The tooth was wiped
91

Papa et al.
clean and the attached periodontal ligament was
scraped ofT until the root surface appeared clean.
The tooth was then placed in a clamping device and
the crown sheared ofT below the cemento-enamel
junction (CEJ) with a microtome blade (hit with a
hammer). With vital teeth the pulp was extirpated
using a barbed broach and the canal was superficially filed with Hedstrom files. This was done to
avoid any contribution to the moisture content from
pulpal fragments. A section of root dentin (from the
coronal one third) approximately 5 mm long was
then sheared off in the same way. This section was
split into smaller fragments. Each fragment was
examined and any remaining pulp tissue, periodontal tissue or gutta percha was removed. Three
samples from each tooth were then distributed to
three preweighed microfuge tubes at room temperature and the caps resealed to prevent any moisture
loss. These tubes had previously been desiccated to
constant weight in an oven at 105C. The samples
were then weighed on an analytical balance, accurate to 10 |ig (Sartorius, model 1712, Santorius,
Gottingen, Germany) and returned to the 105C
oven with the tubes uncapped. The vials were subsequently capped before removal from the oven and
weighed at room temperature each day until a stable
weight was achieved for at least three successive
days.
The initial ("fresh") and final or "dry" specimen

Table 1. Moisture content of each matched pair and patient details.

Moisture
vital

Moisture
vital

Patient

Age

Time since
endo J^
(years)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23

64
50
74
53
30
30
71
45
45
50
50
50
73
32
61
61
67
67
67
68
68
57
52

10
6
16
10
8
8
2
15
15
7
7
7
2
17
5
5
20
20
20
4
4
3
31

11.68
12.14
11.79
12.30
13.18
13.16
11.76
12.31
12.35
12.84
12.01
12.81
12.01
12.10
11.86
11.80
13.57
12.27
12.30
12.04
12.65
12.53
12.67

10.50
10.86
12.03
12.33
12.42
13.57
12.36
12.43
11.91
11.43
11.03
10.95
11.70
13.53
12.34
11.96
11.82
12.18
12.27
11.76
12.08
13.46
13.38

1.18
1.28
-0.24
-0.03
0.76
-0.41
-0.60
-0.12
0.44
1.41
0.98
1.86
0.31
-1.43
-0.48
-0.16
1.75
0.09
0.03
0.28
0.57
-0.93
-0.71

Average

55.87

10.52

12.35

12.10

0.25

17

92

Difference

weights were calculated. The difference between

these two measurements would be the amount of
unbound water as indicated by the thermogravimetric studies of Holanger (8), Lim & Liboff (9) and
Heifer et al. (4). The change in weight was expressed as a percentage by the following:
Percentage water =

initial weight final weight

X 100
initial weight

The calculated percentage weight was averaged for

the three vials per tooth.
Random samples containing both the root surface
and the root canal were taken from the fragments of
both endodontically treated and vital teeth during
processing. These samples were collected into formalin and processed for histological examination.
Transverse sections stained with haematoxylin and
eosin were scrutinised for the presence of any remaining periodontal or pulpal cells which may have
contributed to the recorded moisture content.
Results
The average patient age was 55.9 years and the
time since endodontic treatment was 10.5 years.
The values of the percentage moisture content for
each tooth are presented in Table 1. Vital teeth
had a moisture content of 12.35% 0.26% whilst
endodontically treated teeth had a moisture content of 12.10% 0.71%. The average difference in
moisture content between vital and endodontically treated teeth was found to be 0.25% of the
fresh weight. Expressed as a percentage of the
total moisture content, endodontically treated
teeth had 2.05% less water than vital teeth. This
difference was not significant (P>0.05, paired student /-test).
Histological examination of the samples of dentin
revealed only occasional small tags of pulpal or
periodontal tissue. These were too small to contribute significantly to the overall water content of the
samples. Hence it was assumed that the water removed from the dentin samples was unbound water
of the dentin and not from extraneous sources.
Discussion
This study was undertaken to determine whether a
difference in the moisture content of endodontically
treated and vital teeth could be detected. By taking
pairs of teeth from the same patient, all variables
other than loss of pulp vitality were effectively controlled (age, tooth type, degree of dentinal sclerosis,
patient variation), and statistical analysis based on
a paired design was possible. The mean time since
endodontic treatment of approximately 10 years

Moisture in vitai vs treated teeth

should have been more than adequate for any
changes to have occurred.
The vafidity of our findings is dependent on the
reliability of the measurement of moisture content.
Only free water, lost by moderate heating (at 105C)
was measured, since this was the only component
reported earher to be afiected by loss ofpulp vitality
(4). Precautions were undertaken to avoid both the
loss of moisture before initial weighing and the gain
of moisture during the weighing procedure after
dehydration. The teeth were wrapped in aluminium
foil immediately following extraction, and samples
were processed within approximately 10 min and
sealed in preweighed vials before the initial weighing. The vials were also sealed before removal from
the oven, to prevent regaining of moisture. Variation
among triplicate samples from the same tooth, and
among teeth from different subjects, was small.
The values we have obtained for moisture content
of dentin are comparable with those reported by
other workers (4, 8, 10). Our sample preparation
techniques included complete removal of periodontal ligament (and also at least some cementum)
and pulp plus predentin, as demonstrated histologically. The soft tissues have approximately 75%
water content (11), and even small tags of soft tissue
could result in a measurable increase in apparent
moisture content. Any small tags of tissue remaining
were equally present in vital and nonvital teeth.
We have not been able to confirm the findings of
Heifer et al. (4) ofa difference in moisture content.
The lack of difference in moisture content and the
previously shown lack of different in biomechnical
properties (7) suggested that the concept of endodontically treated teeth becoming brittle, should be
reconsidered.

Acknowledgements - The authors would like to

thank J. McCombe, B. Wilson, G. Zehtab-Jadid
and the staff of the casualty department of the
Royal Dental Hospital of Melbourne for their assistance in collecting specimens and Mr. Dennis
Rowler for his assistance in preparing histologieal
samples. This study was supported by a grant
from the National Health and Medical Research
Council of Australia.

References
.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

RADKE R A , J R . , EISSMAN H F . Postendodontic re.storation. In:

COHEN S, BURNS RC, eds. Pathways to the pufp. St. Louis:

Mosby, f99f; 640.

TiDMARSH BG. Restoration of endodonticaffy treated posterior teeth. J Endod f976; 2: 374-5.
JOHNSON JK, SCHWARTZ N L , BLACKWELL R T Evafuation
and restoration of endodontieaffy treated posterior teeth. J
Am Dent Assoc 1976; 93: 597-605.
HELFER AR, MELNICK S, SCHILDER H . Determination of the
moisture content of vitaf and pufpfess teeth. Oral Surg Oral
Med Oral Pathol 1972; 34: 66f-70.
HUANG TG, SCHILDER H , NATHANSON D. Effects of moisture
content and endodontic treatment on some mechanicaf properties of human dentin. J Endod f992; 18: 209-15.
RIVERA E, YAMAUCHI M . Dentin coffagen crossfinks of root
fiffed and normaf teeth. [Abstr 2] J Endod 1990; 16: f90.
SEDGLEY C M , MESSER HH. Are endodonticaffy treated teeth
more britde? J Endod f992; 18: 332-5.
HoLAGER J. Thermogravametric examination of enamef and
dentin. J Dent Res f970; 49: 546-48.
EiM JJ, EiBOEF AR. Thermogravametric anafysis of dentin.
J Dent Res f970; 51: 509-f4.
FRANK RM, NALBANDIAN J. Structure and uftrastructure of
the dentaf pufp. In: BERKOVITZ B K B , BOYLE A, FRANK RM,
et af. Teeth. Heidefberg: Springer Verfag 1989; 249.
WiDDOwsoN T\V. Speciaf or dentaf anatomy and physiofogy
and dentaf histofogy. New Yorfc: Stapfes Press f948; f37.

93