| Literature DB >> 31509877 |
Pegah Sarraf1, Mohammad Hossein Nekoofar1,2, Mohammad Saeed Sheykhrezae1, Paul M H Dummer2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture resistance of immature bovine roots when using ProRoot MTA, CEM Cement, and Biodentine as root filling materials. <br> MATERIALS AND METHODS: An immature bovine tooth model was developed by removing the coronal and apical portions of 70 bovine incisors 8 mm above and 12 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). The specimens were then divided into five groups: ProRoot MTA, CEM Cement, Biodentine, gutta-percha/AH26 sealer, and control. All groups received a 5-mm apical plug with a temporary restorative material. Then, the remaining root canal space was filled with one of the afore-mentioned materials. After setting, the specimens were mounted in acrylic resin. Then, 3 mm coronal to the CEJ from the buccal side of the teeth and at a 135°angle to the long axis, the specimens were loaded until fracture. <br> RESULTS: The specimens in the Biodentine (2196 N) and ProRoot MTA (2103 N) groups had significantly greater fracture resistance in comparison to the control group (p = 0.01). No significant difference was found between CEM Cement, gutta-percha and sealer AH26, and control groups. No significant differences occurred between the four experimental groups (p = 0.45). <br> CONCLUSION: Filling the root canal space with ProRoot MTA and Biodentine contributed to higher fracture resistance values. Dental Investigation Society.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31509877 PMCID: PMC6777150 DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1695654
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Dent
Fig. 1( A ) Radiographic view of the Coltosol apical plug, ( B ) obturation of the entire root canal with Biodentine, ( C ) schematic view of the jig of the universal testing machine, and ( D ) relation of the indenter and the sample
Mean value and standard deviation of fracture strength and mode of fracture of the samples
| Experimental group | Fracture strength values, mean + SD | Mode of fracture of the samples (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crown Fx. | VRF | One-third middle root Fx. | One-third cervical root Fx. | Enamel Fx. | ||
| Abbreviations: CEM, calcium-enriched mixture; Fx., fracture; MTA, mineral trioxide aggregate; SD, standard deviation; VRF, vertical root fracture. | ||||||
| Control | 1451.6 ± 332.1 | 0.0 | 28.6 | 50 | 14.3 | 7.1 |
| Gutta-percha | 1873.5 ± 579.8 | 7.1 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 64.3 | 0.0 |
| CEM | 1860.8 ± 370.6 | 14.3 | 21.4 | 14.3 | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| MTA | 2103.6 ± 549.8 | 0.0 | 21.4 | 14.3 | 64.3 | 0.0 |
| Biodentine | 2196.1 ± 575.6 | 0.0 | 35.7 | 28.6 | 21.4 | 14.3 |