Abstract
Background. The aim of this study was to compare the push-out bond strengths of calcium silicate-based ProRoot MTA and Biodentine cements and SureFil SDR and EverX Posterior bulk-fill composite resins. Methods. Twenty-four single-rooted maxillary central incisors were sectioned below the cementoenamel junction, and the root canals were instrumented using rotary files. Thereafter, a parallel post drill was used to obtain a standardized root canal dimension. The roots were randomly assigned to one of the following groups with respect to the intra-orifice barrier used: ProRoot MTA; Biodentine; SureFil SDR; EverX Posterior. Five 1-mm-thick sections were obtained from the coronal aspect of each root. Push-out bond strength testing was performed and data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc Dunn tests (P<0.05). Results. SureFil SDR and EverX Posterior bulk-fill composite resins’ bond strengths were significantly higher than ProRoot MTA and Biodentine calcium silicate cements. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between bulk-fill composite resins values and calcium silicate cement values. Conclusion. Within the limitations of present study, calcium silicate-based ProRoot MTA cement’s push-out bond strength was lower than those of Biodentine, SureFil SDR and EverX Posterior materials.
Highlights
Coronal leakage is one of the most important reasons for the failure after root canal treatment.[1]
No statistically significant differences were observed between bulkfill composite resins values and calcium silicate cement values
It has been suggested that to prevent the penetration of oral fluids and microorganisms into the JODDD, Vol 12, No 1 Winter 2018 root canals 3‒4 mm of coronal gutta-percha should be removed from the root canal and an intra-orifice barrier should be placed at canal orifice[3] or a pulpal base should be placed using a restorative material.[4]
Summary
Coronal leakage is one of the most important reasons for the failure after root canal treatment.[1] Ray and Trope[2] reported that the quality of coronal restoration is more important in protecting the periapical health than the quality of root canal filling For this purpose, it has been suggested that to prevent the penetration of oral fluids and microorganisms into the JODDD, Vol 12, No 1 Winter 2018 root canals 3‒4 mm of coronal gutta-percha should be removed from the root canal and an intra-orifice barrier should be placed at canal orifice[3] or a pulpal base should be placed using a restorative material.[4] Previous studies have reported that covering the pulpal base with intra-orifice barrier materials after the root canal treatment constructs a secondary defense line against bacterial leakage.[4,5] For this purpose, different materials have been employed, including temporary filling materials, glass-ionomer cement, composite resin, MTA and IRM.[6,7]. The aim of this study was to compare the push-out bond strengths of calcium silicate-based ProRoot MTA and Biodentine cements and SureFil SDR and EverX Posterior bulk-fill composite resins
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callMore From: Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
