Victor Caronna1, Van Himel1, Qingzhao Yu2, Jian-Feng Zhang3, Kent Sabey4. 1. Department of Endodontics, LSU Health Sciences Center, School of Dentistry, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2. Biostatistics Program, LSU School of Public Health, New Orleans, Louisiana. 3. Department of Biomaterials, LSU Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana. 4. Department of Endodontics, LSU Health Sciences Center, School of Dentistry, New Orleans, Louisiana. Electronic address: ksabey@lsuhsc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Procedures used in single-visit or multiple-visit approaches to apical barrier creation were used with an experimental apexification model to test the surface hardness of 3 materials. The purpose of this study was to examine the microhardness of the materials after setting in moist or dry conditions. METHODS: A simulated open apex and periapical environment model was created using polyethylene tubes placed into a porous block filled with phosphate-buffered saline. White ProRoot Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA; Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), EndoSequence Root Repair Material (ESRRM; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA), and Biodentine (BD; Septodont, Louisville, CO) were mixed and placed into the apical 4 mm of the tubes (N = 15). The moist group had a damp cotton pellet above the test materials (mineral trioxide aggregate or ESSRM) with Fuji II LC (GC America, Alsip, IL) sealing the coronal segment. The dry group had gutta-percha placed directly against the test materials with amalgam sealing the coronal segment. After 10 days of storage in 100% humidity at 37°C, samples were sectioned, and microhardness was independently measured at 2 mm and 4 mm from the apical end. Differences were assessed using analysis of variance and a Tukey post hoc test (α = .05). RESULTS: Analysis of variance analyses showed no significant effect of wet or dry conditions on resultant material hardness. A Tukey post hoc test showed that using ESRRM and BD would not result in a significant difference in hardness, but using MTA would result in statistically significant different hardness values when compared with ESRRM or BD. CONCLUSIONS: Either a moist or dry environment could allow hardening of materials; thus, both methods could be acceptable for clinical treatment procedures.
INTRODUCTION: Procedures used in single-visit or multiple-visit approaches to apical barrier creation were used with an experimental apexification model to test the surface hardness of 3 materials. The purpose of this study was to examine the microhardness of the materials after setting in moist or dry conditions. METHODS: A simulated open apex and periapical environment model was created using polyethylene tubes placed into a porous block filled with phosphate-buffered saline. White ProRoot Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA; Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), EndoSequence Root Repair Material (ESRRM; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA), and Biodentine (BD; Septodont, Louisville, CO) were mixed and placed into the apical 4 mm of the tubes (N = 15). The moist group had a damp cotton pellet above the test materials (mineral trioxide aggregate or ESSRM) with Fuji II LC (GC America, Alsip, IL) sealing the coronal segment. The dry group had gutta-percha placed directly against the test materials with amalgam sealing the coronal segment. After 10 days of storage in 100% humidity at 37°C, samples were sectioned, and microhardness was independently measured at 2 mm and 4 mm from the apical end. Differences were assessed using analysis of variance and a Tukey post hoc test (α = .05). RESULTS: Analysis of variance analyses showed no significant effect of wet or dry conditions on resultant material hardness. A Tukey post hoc test showed that using ESRRM and BD would not result in a significant difference in hardness, but using MTA would result in statistically significant different hardness values when compared with ESRRM or BD. CONCLUSIONS: Either a moist or dry environment could allow hardening of materials; thus, both methods could be acceptable for clinical treatment procedures.