case report | for rapid fluid movement during expansion and con- traction of the bubbles. A modified method, known as SWEEPS (shock wave enhanced emission photo- acoustic streaming),5, 6 has been developed as an up- grade of the SSP technique and is particularly suitable for very confined spaces. Unlike the SSP technique, the SWEEPS technique delivers pulses in pairs. The second pulse exerts pressure on the ini- tial bubble, which is generated by the first pulse, and accel- erates its collapse and the emergence of a new generation of bubbles. In this way, even in very narrow geometries, shock waves are formed that travel faster than sound (acoustic waves). The optimal time difference between pulses in a pair depends on the volume and anatomy of the confined space. When the correlation between tooth anatomy and the time between pulses in a pair cannot be defined ex- actly, a special modality of the method, known as AutoSWEEPS, is used, whereby the time separation between laser pulses in a pair varies continuously be- tween 250 and 650 microseconds, in increments of 10 microseconds. This ensures that during each cleaning cycle there is always an optimal time distance between the pulses, which is necessary for the emission of shock waves and thus for the maximum possible flow efficiency according to the dimensions of the irrigation system.5, 6 The efficiency of either SSP or SWEEPS in removing bio- film and debris can be enhanced with chemical irrigants. In endodontics, the two most commonly used irrigants are sodium hypochlorite and EDTA. Endodontically treated teeth are often more prone to crown or root fracture compared with vital teeth. Several factors contribute to this, the most important being that non-vital teeth often have less sound tooth structure owing to progressive carious lesions, trauma or previous restorations. Certain clinical procedures may also lead to a higher incidence of tooth fracture in endodontically treated teeth, such as creation of large access cavities, excessive mechanical shaping of the roots, prolonged use of different irrigating solutions (sodium hypochlorite, EDTA) and medications (calcium hydroxide) during endodontic treatment, improper restorative treatment without cuspal coverage in the posterior region, and high masticatory forces in cer- tain individuals. Once the tooth has broken off below the gingival margin, it is often very difficult to restore it properly, and additional clinical procedures such sur- gical lengthening of the clinical crown or orthodontic extrusion are needed. When placing a new restoration, the biologic width of the tooth has to be respected and the margin of the restoration should be at least 2.15–2.30 mm (preferably around 3.0 mm) from the crestal bone, to allow for a normal epithelial junction and connective tissue attachment to avoid chronic inflammation and periodontal tissue loss. 5 7 6 8 Figs. 5 & 6: Tooth #36 with broken lingual wall 14 days after crown lengthening. Figs. 7 & 8: Tooth #36 with composite build-up before endodontic treatment. Case presentation A 28-year-old male patient was referred to our clinic for endodontic treatment of a mandibular molar owing to chronic periapical periodontitis. He stated that a few weeks before the appointment, a large part of the tooth had broken off. The patient was healthy, took no medi- cation and reported no allergies. There was no trauma to the dentition in the patient’s dental history. Intra-oral examination revealed moderate plaque control and oral hygiene. All third molars had been removed in the past, and teeth #16, 24, 26 and 36 had already been endodonti- cally treated. The gingiva was quite healthy, pink in colour, and did not bleed on probing. Probing depth was normal around all teeth. There were no pathological conditions on the tongue, mucosa, or hard or soft palate, or in the oropharynx. The occlusion was Angle Class I. The intra-oral clinical ex- amination showed that tooth #36 had a large mesioocclu- sal-distal (MOD) composite filling and that the buccal wall was intact, whereas the lingual wall of the tooth crown had broken off about 2 mm below the gingival margin. The tooth was slightly tender to percussion and sensitive to palpation adjacent to the apex of the tooth. The mobility of the tooth had not increased. Probing depth was normal, but there was slight bleeding on probing on the lingual side (Figs. 1 & 2). Analysis of a radiograph showed the large MOD filling and the broken lingual wall of the tooth (Fig. 3). The tooth had been endodontically treated in the past; the root fillings were porous and short in the mesial root. There were bone lesions (chronic periapical periodontitis) under both the mesial and distal roots. Diagnosis The diagnosis was chronic periapical periodontitis and a broken lingual wall of the tooth crown. roots 2 2021 21