ABSTRACT
Background:Background and objective: One of the unfavourable outcomes of endodontic treatment is furcal perforation. Materials such as MTA-Angelus, Biodentine and Zirconomer have been recommended for the repair of furcal perforations.In this study we compared the sealing ability of MTA-Angelus, Biodentine and Zirconia-reinforced GIC in furcal perforations using dye penetration method. Material And Methods:Access cavities were prepared in extracted mandibular molars (n= 40) using round bur in a high speed hand pieceunder water coolant. Perforations were made in the centre of furcation region using 2mm round bur.The teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups based on the material used to seal the perforation: Group I(n= 12) = MTA –Angelus , Group II (n=12)= Biodentine, Group III(n=12) = Zirconomer , Group IV (n= 4) = left unsealed (negative control group).Leakage at the repaired site was then evaluated using methylene blue dye penetration technique under stereomicroscope and data was statistically analyzed.Result:Minimum dye penetration was observed in biodentine followed by MTA, Zirconomer and control group. The results was not statistically significant (p= .08). Conclusion:According to this study, biodentine showed best of the three materials used for furcation repair.
ABSTRACT
El propósito de este estudio fue caracterizar los componentes de los cementos comerciales para uso en odontología MTA Angelus ® Blanco (Angelus, Lodrina, Paraná Brasil) y de Biodentine TM (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des Fosses, Francia) mediante Microscopia Electrónica de Barrido, difracción de rayos X, fluorescencia de rayos X, espectrometría de dispersión de electrones y espectroscopia infrarroja. Los dos cementos se mezclaron según las indicaciones del fabricante. Se les practicó un estudio de textura de superficie mediante el microscopio electrónico de barrido (MEB), un análisis de difracción de rayos X (DRX), un análisis de fluorescencia de rayos X (FRX), un análisis de espectrometría de energía dispersiva (EDS) y un análisis de espectroscopia infrarroja (IR), para determinar los grupos funcionales. Resultados: Se presentó una diferencia en el análisis XRD entre Biodentine presentó Na2O y ZrO2 mientras que están ausentes en el MTA. El MTA presentó Cr2O3 y BiO2 ausentes en el Biodentine. En el análisis de EDS las diferencias fueron en el agente radiopacador y que el Biodentine presentó Cl a diferencia del MTA y en el análisis estadístico realizado, a pesar de que prácticamente se presentaron los mismos componentes, los porcentajes en los contenidos de éstos fueron estadísticamente signifi cativos. En el análisis de MEB hay una gran diferencia, el MTA presenta una superfi cie porosa e irregular, el Biodentine una forma fi brilar e irregular. Conclusión: Existe una gran similitud en los componentes químicos entre el MTA Angelus y Biodentine con excepción de los componentes químicos para proporcionarles radiopacidad, el tamaño y la forma del grano y en el caso del Biodentine el cloruro de calcio.
The aim of the present study was to characterize components of commercial cements used in dentistry MTA Angelus® White (Angelus Lodrina, Parana Brazil) and Biodentine TM (Septodont, Saint-Maurdes Fosses, France). Techniques used for said characterization were Scanning Electron Microscope, X-Ray Diffraction, X Ray Fluorescence, Electron Dispersion Spectrometry, and Infrared Spectroscopy. Both cements were mixed according to manufactures instructions. A study of surface texture was conducted with Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), and X Ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis, and X Ray fluorescence analysis (XRF), an analysis of Dispersive Energy Spectrometry (DES), as well as an Infra Red Spectroscopy (IRS) in order to determine functional groups. Results: In XRD analysis, a difference was found: Biodentine exhibited Na2O and ZrO2. These elements were absent in MTA. MTA presented Cr2O3 and BiO2 which in turn were absent in Biodentine. EDS analysis revealed that differences were found in the radio-opacifying agent, and that Biodentine presented CaCl2 differing in this from MTA. Statistical analysis conducted revealed statistically signifi cant percentages in contents, even though components were found to be practically the same. SEM analysis revealed marked differences: MTA presented irregular and porous surface whereas Biodentine exhibited irregular and filament form. Conclusion: There is a great similarity in the chemical components of MTA Angelus and Biodentine, with the exception of chemical components providing radio-opacity, the size and form of the grain, and, in Biodentine presence of calcium chloride.
ABSTRACT
El objetivo de esta investigación fue evaluar in vitro la respuesta de fibroblastos gingivales contra diferentes selladores endodónticos mediante cultivos celulares, en un lapso de 96 horas. Los resultados obtenidos a intervalos de tiempo de 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 24, 48, 72 y 96 horas fueron utilizados para determinar la citotoxicidad de los selladores. Cultivos de fibroblastos gingivales sin ningún sellador y con Sealapex fueron utilizados como controles positivos y negativos respectivamente. Los resultados fueron comparados con los controles negativos y analizados estadísticamente por medio de la prueba t Dunnett (p ≤ 0.05). Los cementos selladores investigados fueron: ProRoot MTA gris y blanco CPM, MTA Angelus, Sealapex y GuttaFlow. Los resultados demostraron que a pesar de que el ProRoot MTA (gris y blanco) MTA Angelus, CPM y GuttaFlow demostraron tener un potencial citotóxico menor que el Sealapex, no se encontraron diferencias estadísticas significativas.
The aim of the present study was the in vitro evaluation of the response, within 96 hours, of gingival fibroblast cultures with respect to different endodontic sealers. Results obtained at time intervals of 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours were used to determine sealers' cytotoxicity. Gingival fibroblasts cultures without root canal sealer and with Sealapex were used as negative and positive controls respectively. Results were compared with negative controls and statistically analyzed with t Dunnett test (p ≤ 0.05). Assessed sealing cements were: ProRoot MTA, grey and white, CPM, MTA Angelus, Sealapex and GuttaFlow. Results showed that even though ProRoot MTA (grey and white) MTA Angelus, CPM and GuttaFlow exhibited lower cytotoxic potential than Sealapex, no statistical significant differences were established.