Vertical root fracture (VRF) is a common reason for the extraction of root filled teeth. The accurate diagnosis of VRF may be challenging due to the absence of clinical signs, whilst conventional radiographic assessment is often inconclusive. However, an understanding of the aetiology of VRFs, and more importantly, the key predisposing factors, is crucial in identifying teeth that may be susceptible. Thorough clinical examination with magnification and co‐axial lighting is essential in identifying VRFs, and although CBCT is unable to reliably detect VRFsper se, the pattern of bone loss typically associated with VRF can be fully appreciated, and therefore, increases the probability of correct diagnosis and management. The prevalence of VRFs in root filled teeth is significantly greater than in teeth with vital pulps, demonstrating that the combination of loss of structural integrity, presence of pre‐existing fractures and biochemical effects of loss of vitality is highly relevant. Careful assessment of the occlusal scheme, presence of deflective contacts and identification of parafunctional habits are imperative in both preventing and managing VRFs. Furthermore, anatomical factors such as root canal morphology may predispose certain teeth to VRF. The influence of access cavity design and root canal instrumentation protocols should be considered although the impact of these on the fracture resistance of root filled teeth is not clearly validated. The post‐endodontic restoration of root filled teeth should be expedient and considerate to the residual tooth structure. Posts should be placed ‘passively’ and excessive ‘post‐space’ preparation should be avoided. This narrative review aims to present the aetiology, potential predisposing factors, histopathology, diagnosis and management of VRF and present perspectives for future research. Currently, there are limited options other than extraction for the management of VRF, although root resection may be considered in multi‐rooted teeth. Innovative techniques to ‘repair’ VRFs using both orthograde and surgical approaches require further research and validation. The prevention of VRFs is critical; identifying susceptible teeth, utilizing conservative endodontic procedures, together with expedient and appropriate post‐endodontic restorative procedures is paramount to reducing the incidence of terminal VRFs.

Purpose: This study compared the antimicrobial efficacy of calcium silicate sealers (BioRoot RCS and Total Fill BC) and conventional sealers (AH Plus and Tubli-seal) against planktonic bacteria and a nutrient-stressed multispecies biofilm. Methods: Antimicrobial properties of freshly mixed sealers were investigated using the direct contact test (DCT) and a nutrient-stressed multispecies biofilm comprised of five endodontic strains. Antimicrobial activity was determined using quantitative viable counts and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) analysis with live/dead staining. The pH of the sealers was analysed over a period of 28 days in Hanks Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey tests and the Kruskal–Wallis test were used for data analysis with a significance of 5%. Results: All endodontic sealers exhibited significant antimicrobial activity against planktonic bacteria (p < 0.05). BioRoot RCS caused a significant reduction in viable counts of the biofilms compared to AH Plus and the control (p < 0.05), while no significant difference could be observed compared to TotalFill BC and Tubli-seal (p > 0.05). CLSM analysis showed that BioRoot RCS and TotalFill BC exhibited significant biofilm inhibition compared to Tubli-seal, AH Plus and the control (p < 0.05). BioRoot RCS presented with the highest microbial killing, followed by TotalFill BC and Tubli-seal. Alkalizing activity was seen from the onset by BioRoot RCS, TotalFill BC and AH Plus. After 28 days, BioRoot RCS demonstrated the highest pH in HBSS (pH > 12). Conclusions: Calcium silicate sealers exhibited effective antimicrobial properties. This was demonstrated by superior biofilm inhibition capacity and microbial killing, with strong alkalizing activity compared to epoxy-based and zinc oxide-eugenol-based sealers.

This position statement is a consensus view of an expert committee convened by the European Society of Endodontology (ESE). The statement is based on current clinical and scientific evidence as well as the collective reflective practice of the committee. The aim is to provide clinicians with evidence‐based, authoritative information on the aetiology, clinical presentation, and management of cracks and fractures that typically manifest along the long axis of the crown and/or root.