INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of MTA (Dentsply Maillefer, Tulsa, OK) and EndoSequence Root Repair Material (ESRRM; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA) to set in the presence of human blood and minimal essential media. METHODS: A model was created using polymethyl methacrylate blocks each prepared with 10 standardized wells (2-mm diameter × 3-mm depth). Prepared ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Maillefer) and ESRRM were each placed in 6 separate blocks. The samples were distributed among the 4 different media (ie, blood, minimal essential media, blood and minimal essential media, and sterile saline as the control). Each block was submerged for 4, 5, 6, 8, 24, 36, and 48 hours in an incubator at 37°C with 100% humidity. RESULTS: The results revealed that regardless of the type of media exposure, neither of the materials set at 4 or 6 hours. ESRRM was not set at 48 hours, whereas all of the MTA samples were set at 36 hours. CONCLUSIONS: This outcome draws into question the proposed setting time given by each respective manufacturer. Furthermore, despite ESRRM being marketed as a direct competitor to MTA with superior handling properties, MTA consistently set at a faster rate under the conditions of this study.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of MTA (Dentsply Maillefer, Tulsa, OK) and EndoSequence Root Repair Material (ESRRM; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA) to set in the presence of human blood and minimal essential media. METHODS: A model was created using polymethyl methacrylate blocks each prepared with 10 standardized wells (2-mm diameter × 3-mm depth). Prepared ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Maillefer) and ESRRM were each placed in 6 separate blocks. The samples were distributed among the 4 different media (ie, blood, minimal essential media, blood and minimal essential media, and sterile saline as the control). Each block was submerged for 4, 5, 6, 8, 24, 36, and 48 hours in an incubator at 37°C with 100% humidity. RESULTS: The results revealed that regardless of the type of media exposure, neither of the materials set at 4 or 6 hours. ESRRM was not set at 48 hours, whereas all of the MTA samples were set at 36 hours. CONCLUSIONS: This outcome draws into question the proposed setting time given by each respective manufacturer. Furthermore, despite ESRRM being marketed as a direct competitor to MTA with superior handling properties, MTA consistently set at a faster rate under the conditions of this study.
Authors: Ya-Juan Guo; Tian-Feng Du; Hong-Bo Li; Ya Shen; Christophe Mobuchon; Ahmed Hieawy; Zhe-Jun Wang; Yan Yang; Jingzhi Ma; Markus Haapasalo Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 2.757