Marginal Adaptation of a new Formulation of MTA Material used as Root-End Filling: A Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Study

Abstract

Introduction Achieving a hermetic apical seal is mandatory to prevent ingress of any microorganisms or periapical fluids into the root canal system. Therefore it is essential to develop new materials having favorable physical, chemical and biological properties. Aim the purpose of this study was to use scanning electron microscopy to compare the marginal adaptation of new formulation of MTA (Harvard MTA), MTA flow and glass ionomer as root end filling materials using ultrasonic root-end preparation. Methodology Thirty-nine extracted single rooted human teeth were prepared using Protaper Next file system (Dentsply/Sirona) and filled with gutta-percha and MTA fillapex sealer (MTA Fillapex; Angelus, Londrina, Brazil) and obturated using cold lateral compaction technique. The apical 3 mm of the roots were sectioned perpendicular to the long axis of the roots. A 3-mm depth root-end cavity was prepared with ultrasonic tips powered by an Enac ultrasonic device. The teeth were randomly allocated into three groups of 13 teeth each according to filling materials tested. Group I the samples were filled with Harvard MTA (Universal, Handmix, Germany, Harvard), Group II filled with MTA Flow (Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan,UT, USA), group III filled with glass ionomer (Fuji II, GC gold label 2, GC International, Japan). Using SEM the distance between the tested materials and the surrounding dentin was measured at different points.Results According to the results of Kruskal-Wallis, there was significant difference between the three experimental groups at P value 0.01. The Man Whitney test was used for two-by-two comparison of the groups which revealed no statistical significant difference between MTA flow and MTA Harvard group however; there was statistically significant difference in Glass Ionomer group. Conclusion SEM results showed the presence of gaps in the root-end filling materials in all groups. MTA flow has the best marginal adaptation followed by MTA Harvard while the Glass Ionomer showed the least marginal adaptation.