| Literature DB >> 27382564 |
Yeliz Guven1, Elif Bahar Tuna1, M Emir Dincol2, Emre Ozel3, Bulent Yilmaz2, Oya Aktoren1.
Abstract
Objective. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the long-term fracture resistance of simulated human immature permanent teeth filled with BioAggregate™ (BA), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), and EndoSequence® Root Repair Material (ERRM). Material and Methods. 40 teeth, simulated to average root length of 13 ± 1 mm (Cvek's stage 3), were included in the study. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups: Group 1: DiaRoot® BA, Group 2: MTA-Plus™ (MTA-P), Group 3: MTA-Angelus (MTA-A), and Group 4: ERRM. The root canal filling materials were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. After 24 months of incubation, the roots of the teeth were embedded in acrylic blocks and subjected to fracture testing. The resultant data were analyzed statistically by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results. Mean (±SD) failure loads (MPa) were 20.46 ± 2.53 for BA, 18.88 ± 5.13 for MTA-P, 14.12 ± 1.99 for MTA-A, and 17.65 ± 4.28 for ERRM groups. BA group exhibited the highest and MTA-A group showed the lowest resistance to fracture. Significant differences in fracture resistance were found between the groups of BA and MTA-A (p < 0.001), MTA-P and MTA-A (p < 0.05), and ERRM and MTA-A (p < 0.05). Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, data suggests that BA-filled immature teeth demonstrate higher fracture resistance than other groups at 24 months appearing to be the most promising material tested.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27382564 PMCID: PMC4921621 DOI: 10.1155/2016/2863817
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Manufacturer names and composition of the root canal filling materials used in the study.
| Material | Company | Major chemical compounds |
|---|---|---|
| BioAggregate | DiaDent Group International, Canada | Tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tantalum pentoxide, calcium phosphate monobasic, amorphous silicon oxide |
|
| ||
| MTA-Angelus | Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil | Tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, tetracalcium aluminoferrite, bismuth oxide |
|
| ||
| MTA-Plus | Avalon Biomed Inc. by Prevest Denpro Limited, India | Tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, bismuth oxide, calcium sulfate, silica |
|
| ||
| EndoSequence Root Repair Material | Brasseler, USA | Tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, zirconium oxide, tantalum oxide, calcium phosphate monobasic, calcium hydroxide, filler and thickening agents |
Figure 1Frontal view of the simulated immature teeth after root filling.
Figure 2Compression force was applied at a point 3 mm from the CEJ and perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth with an Instron Universal Testing Machine.
Mean fracture strengths (MPa) of teeth treated with BA, MTA-A, MTA-P, and ERRM at 24-month period and intergroup comparison of difference in fracture strength.
| Groups | Fracture strength |
+
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Median | ||
| 1BA | 20.46 ± 2.53 | 21.04 (15.78–23.31) |
|
| 2MTA-P | 18.88 ± 5.13 | 17.45 (11.25–25.37) | |
| 3MTA-A | 14.12 ± 1.99 | 13.61 (11.71–18.02) | |
| 4ERRM | 17.65 ± 4.28 | 16.66 (12.57–26.37) | |
|
| |||
| 1-2 †
|
| ||
| 1-3 †
|
| ||
| 1-4 †
|
| ||
| 2-3 †
|
| ||
| 2-4 †
|
| ||
| 3-4 †
|
| ||
+Kruskal-Wallis test; †Mann-Whitney U test; p < 0.01; p < 0.05.
Figure 3Boxplots with forces required to cause cervical root fracture for each of the groups. ∗, #, and + symbols represent significant differences (p < 0.05).