INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of various endodontic irrigants on the push-out bond strength of Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fossés, France) in comparison with contemporary root perforation repair materials. METHODS: Midroot dentin of canine teeth was horizontally sectioned into 1-mm-thick slices. The canal space of each dentin slice was enlarged with a diamond bur to 1.4 mm in diameter. The samples were divided into 5 groups (n = 40), and the following materials were placed, respectively: Biodentine, ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), amalgam, Dyract AP (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), and intermediate restorative material (IRM, Dentsply DeTrey). The samples were wrapped in wet gauze for 10 minutes and divided into 3 subgroups (n = 10) to be immersed into 3.5% sodium hypochlorite, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), or saline for 30 minutes. No irrigation was performed in the controls (n = 10), and a wet cotton pellet was placed over each test material. After incubation for 48 hours, the dislodgement resistance of the samples was measured using a universal testing machine. The samples were examined under a stereomicroscope to determine the nature of the bond failures. RESULTS: Biodentine showed significantly higher push-out bond strength than MTA (P < .05). The statistical ranking of push-out bond strength values was as follows: Dyract AP > amalgam ≥ IRM ≥ Biodentine > MTA. The push-out bond strength of Dyract AP, amalgam, IRM, and Biodentine was not significantly different when immersed in NaOCl, CHX, and saline solutions, whereas MTA lost strength when exposed to CHX. CONCLUSIONS: Biodentine showed considerable performance as a perforation repair material even after being exposed to various endodontic irrigants, whereas MTA had the lowest push-out bond strength to root dentin.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of various endodontic irrigants on the push-out bond strength of Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fossés, France) in comparison with contemporary root perforation repair materials. METHODS: Midroot dentin of canine teeth was horizontally sectioned into 1-mm-thick slices. The canal space of each dentin slice was enlarged with a diamond bur to 1.4 mm in diameter. The samples were divided into 5 groups (n = 40), and the following materials were placed, respectively: Biodentine, ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), amalgam, Dyract AP (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), and intermediate restorative material (IRM, Dentsply DeTrey). The samples were wrapped in wet gauze for 10 minutes and divided into 3 subgroups (n = 10) to be immersed into 3.5% sodium hypochlorite, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), or saline for 30 minutes. No irrigation was performed in the controls (n = 10), and a wet cotton pellet was placed over each test material. After incubation for 48 hours, the dislodgement resistance of the samples was measured using a universal testing machine. The samples were examined under a stereomicroscope to determine the nature of the bond failures. RESULTS:Biodentine showed significantly higher push-out bond strength than MTA (P < .05). The statistical ranking of push-out bond strength values was as follows: Dyract AP > amalgam ≥ IRM ≥ Biodentine > MTA. The push-out bond strength of Dyract AP, amalgam, IRM, and Biodentine was not significantly different when immersed in NaOCl, CHX, and saline solutions, whereas MTA lost strength when exposed to CHX. CONCLUSIONS:Biodentine showed considerable performance as a perforation repair material even after being exposed to various endodontic irrigants, whereas MTA had the lowest push-out bond strength to root dentin.
Authors: Magda de Sousa Reis; Roberta Kochenborger Scarparo; Liviu Steier; José Antônio Poli de Figueiredo Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 3.573