This study evaluated the radiopacity of 3 repair materials, Biodentine, MM-MTA, and MTA Angelus. Standardized cylindrical rings were prepared. Samples of Biodentine MM-MTA and MTA Angelus were prepared (n = 10 in each group), filled into the rings, and preserved at 37°C until setting. A 1 mm thick dentin slice was used as control. All set specimens were removed and radiographed along with the dentine slice and a graduated aluminium step wedge. Digital images were transferred to the computer using a software. The radiographic densities of the specimens were determined, and the values were converted into millimetres of aluminium (mm Al). One-way ANOVA was used for intergroup comparison, whereas Tukey HSD test was used for detecting the group with the difference. The mean radiopacities of Biodentine, MTA Angelus, and MM-MTA were 2.8 ± 0.48, 4.72 ± 0.45, and 5.18 ± 0.51 mm Al, respectively. The radiopacity of Biodentine was significantly lower compared to other materials (P = 0.001), whereas no significant difference was noted between MTA Angelus and MM-MTA (P = 0.109). All materials had significantly higher radiopacities compared to dentine. The relatively lower radiopacity of Biodentine can be improved to achieve more reliable results in procedures such as retrograde fillings.
Systems aiming to obtain a monoblock system were not superior to the conventional AH-Plus + Gutta-percha technique in terms of fracture resistance. The fracture resistance of roots using ActiV GP + lateral compaction Gutta-percha was significantly reduced compared with the AH-Plus + Gutta-percha group.
Within the limitations of this study, root canal filling with MTA and two CR materials affected reinforcement of simulated immature roots to levels comparable with intact roots.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.