Abstract
BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare the porosity of two repair cements, White ProRoot® MTA and Biodentine®. These samples were analyzed by using micro-computed microtomography.Material and MethodsSixteen samples were used in the study that were divided according to the composition of the materials used. White ProRoot® MTA (n = 8) and Biodentine® (n = 8) were the samples prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions. They were placed in silicone molds of 5 ± 0.1mm in height and an internal diameter of 5 ± 0.1mm, 24 hours after its preparation, the samples were scanned through a micro-CT, the porosity results were analyzed statistically by independent “t” tests.ResultsIt is evident that Biodentine® has better porosity properties than ProRoot® MTA. The results of the study quantify a smaller number of pores per surface, a smaller volume in each pore per mm3 and a lower total porosity present in samples of Biodentine® unlike ProRoot® MTA samples which is larger in both.ConclusionsThe results obtained in computerized microtomography endodontic biomaterial samples concluded that Biodentine® has a lower porosity than ProRoot® MTA. Key words:Porosity, microleakage, micro-CT, endodontic cements.
Highlights
When performing endodontic treatment, for the sealing technique to be successful generally a sealing material and a base material are required, which are generally gutta-percha cones [1,2,3]
Through the sagittal and transverse sections of the samples (Fig. 1), it was possible to quantify the volume of each pore per mm3, the number of pores per surface and the total porosity present in the endodontic materials, both based on mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and based on calcium silicate (Table 1)
It has been found that the repair material based on calcium silicate Biodentine®, has better properties in regard to porosity unlike the material based on mineral trioxide aggregate ProRoot® MTA, since the results of Biodentine® in what refers to the amount of pores per surface is notably lower than those presented by MTA (P = 0.000)
Summary
For the sealing technique to be successful generally a sealing material and a base material are required, which are generally gutta-percha cones [1,2,3]. The purpose of this study is to compare the porosity of two repair cements, White ProRoot® MTA and Biodentine®. These samples were analyzed by using micro-computed microtomography. Material and Methods: Sixteen samples were used in the study that were divided according to the composition of the materials used. White ProRoot® MTA (n = 8) and Biodentine® (n = 8) were the samples prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions They were placed in silicone molds of 5 ± 0.1mm in height and an internal diameter of 5 ± 0.1mm, 24 hours after its preparation, the samples were scanned through a micro-CT, the porosity results were analyzed statistically by independent “t” tests. Conclusions: The results obtained in computerized microtomography endodontic biomaterial samples concluded that Biodentine® has a lower porosity than ProRoot® MTA
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
