|
KMID : 1034420140390030201
|
|
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
2014 Volume.39 No. 3 p.201 ~ p.209
|
|
|
Comparative analysis of physicochemical properties of root perforation sealer materials
|
|
Dorileo Maura Cristiane Goncales Orcati
Pedro Fabio Luis Miranda
Bandeca Matheus Coelho
Guedes Orlando Aguirre
Villa Ricardo Dalla
Borges Alvaro Henrique
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Objectives: This study evaluated the solubility, dimensional alteration, pH, electrical conductivity, and radiopacity of root perforation sealer materials.
Materials and Methods: For the pH test, the samples were immersed in distilled water for different periods of time. Then, the samples were retained in plastic recipients, and the electrical conductivity of the solution was measured. The solubility, dimensional alteration, and radiopacity properties were evaluated according to Specification No. 57 of the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA). Statistical analyses were carried out using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test at a significance level of 5%. When the sample distribution was not normal, a nonparametric ANOVA was performed with a Kruskal-Wallis test (α = 0.05).
Results: The results showed that white structural Portland cement (PC) had the highest solubility, while mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)-based cements, ProRoot MTA (Dentsply-Tulsa Dental) and MTA BIO (Angelus Ind. Prod.), had the lowest values. MTA BIO showed the lowest dimensional alteration values and white PC presented the highest values. No differences among the tested materials were observed in the the pH and electrical conductivity analyses. Only the MTA-based cements met the ANSI/ADA recommendations regarding radiopacity, overcoming the three steps of the aluminum step wedge.
Conclusions: On the basis of these results, we concluded that the values of solubility and dimensional alteration of the materials were in accordance with the ANSI/ADA specifications. PCs did not fulfill the ANSI/ADA requirements regarding radiopacity. No differences were observed among the materials with respect to the pH and electrical conductivity analyses.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Endodontics, Furcation defects, Root canal filling materials
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
 
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
 
|
|