Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the surface morphology and surface hardness of five materials 24 h after filling, in conditions of 100% humidity, and fetal bovine serum. The five materials were ProRoot Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA), Super-EBA, Intermediate Restorative Materials (IRM), Zinc Oxide Eugenol (ZOE), and Amalgam. The microhardness of these materials was evaluated by Vickers microhardness test, and their morphologies were compared by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). To evaluate the microhardness, the mixed five materials were measured with Vickers microhardness test. Differences between the experimental groups were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple comparison tests. All analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). For the microstructural morphological evaluation, the cross cut and root-end cavity prepared surfaces followed by retrograde filling with five different materials were observed under a Scanning Electron Microscope (Steroscan 440; Leica, Cambridge, England) at ×500. To summarize, Super EBA was less influenced by storage medium than the other materials, especially MTA. However, further long-term studies considering other factors, such as biocompatibility (i.e. cellular toxicity) and retention, are needed to be collaborated with these findings in the clinical context.
Published Version (
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