AIM: To compare the ability of Ceramicrete, BioAggregate and white ProRoot MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) to prevent glucose leakage through root-end fillings. METHODOLOGY: After root canal instrumentation, the apical 3 mm of maxillary incisors were resected and retropreparations, 3 mm in depth, were created with ultrasound. Root-end cavities were filled with the tested materials (15 roots per group). All roots were mounted in a double-chamber system to assess glucose penetration using 15 psi pressure application. After 1 h, glucose concentrations in the lower chamber were measured following an enzymatic reaction. Four roots were used as controls. One-way anova verified differences in glucose leakage between groups and Tukey test performed multiple comparisons. Significance was set at α = 5%. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the three materials (anova, P < 0.05). Ceramicrete had significantly lower glucose penetration than BioAggregate (Tukey, P < 0.05). There was no difference between the two bioceramic cements and white MTA (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both endodontic bioceramic repair cements displayed similar leakage results to white MTA when used as root-end fillings materials. Ceramicrete had significantly lower glucose penetration.
AIM: To compare the ability of Ceramicrete, BioAggregate and white ProRoot MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) to prevent glucose leakage through root-end fillings. METHODOLOGY: After root canal instrumentation, the apical 3 mm of maxillary incisors were resected and retropreparations, 3 mm in depth, were created with ultrasound. Root-end cavities were filled with the tested materials (15 roots per group). All roots were mounted in a double-chamber system to assess glucose penetration using 15 psi pressure application. After 1 h, glucose concentrations in the lower chamber were measured following an enzymatic reaction. Four roots were used as controls. One-way anova verified differences in glucose leakage between groups and Tukey test performed multiple comparisons. Significance was set at α = 5%. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the three materials (anova, P < 0.05). Ceramicrete had significantly lower glucose penetration than BioAggregate (Tukey, P < 0.05). There was no difference between the two bioceramic cements and white MTA (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both endodontic bioceramic repair cements displayed similar leakage results to white MTA when used as root-end fillings materials. Ceramicrete had significantly lower glucose penetration.