Fracture resistance and reinforcement of immature roots with gutta percha, mineral trioxide aggregate and calcium phosphate bone cement: a standardized <i>in vitro</i> model

Cauwels, Rita; Pieters, Ilse Y.; Martens, Luc; Verbeeck, Ronald

doi:10.1111/j.1600-9657.2010.00869.x

Cited by 29 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Andreasen et al 31) and Cauwels et al 32) , MTA increased the fracture resistance of immature teeth. In the present study, MTA-based root canal sealer MTA Fillapex showed signifi cantly higher fracture resistance than the negative control group and was not signifi cantly different from AH Plus and iRoot SP.…”

Section: Effect Of Root Canal Sealers On Fracture Resistance Of Rootfmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Its MTA-based composition contains salicylate resin, diluting resin, natural resin, nanoparticulated silica, and bismuth trioxide. In several studies, it was shown that MTA as a root canal fi lling material strengthened the root against fracture 31,32) . This could be related to the phenomenon of delayed strength development of MTA, which occurs after 24 h of setting 33) .…”

Section: Effect Of Root Canal Sealers On Fracture Resistance Of Rootfmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Resistance to fracture of roots filled with different sealers

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONRoot-fi lled teeth are more susceptible to fracture than vital teeth. Ironically, these teeth which were already compromised before root canal treatment are further weakened by the process. A few reasons contribute to the vulnerability of root-fi lled teeth, chief of which is root dentin dehydration after the endodontic procedures 1) . Other reasons that predispose root-fi lled teeth to fracture include brittleness of root-fi lled teeth because of loss of tooth structure 2,3) , excessive pressure during fi lling procedures 1,4) , and excessive widening of root canals 5) . After root canal treatment, the standard fi lling material is gutta percha. To obtain a hermetic seal, gutta percha is typically used in conjunction with root canal sealers because gutta percha is incapable of bonding to root canal walls. Root canal sealers not only fi ll the voids between gutta percha points, they also fi ll the voids between gutta percha and root canal walls 6) . Bondable root canal sealers purportedly improve the seal and fracture resistance of endodontically treated roots 7,8) . To date, confl icting results were reported from different research studies. On the one hand, one study 9) found no signifi cant differences in fracture resistance between roots fi lled with a bondable root canal fi lling system, Epiphany, and those fi lled with gutta percha and an epoxy resin-based sealer, AH 26. On the other hand, a study 10) found that the fracture resistance of roots fi lled with gutta percha and AH 26 was superior to that of roots fi lled with the Epiphany system.Recently, a new root canal sealer, iRoot SP (Innovative BioCreamix Inc, Vancouver, Canada), was introduced to the market. According to the manufacturer, iRoot SP is a convenient, pre-mixed, ready-to-use injectable white hydraulic cement paste developed for permanent root canal fi lling and sealing applications. Based on a calcium silicate composition, iRoot SP is an insoluble, radiopaque, and aluminum-free material which requires the presence of water to set and harden.Another recently introduced root canal sealer is MTA Fillapex (Angelus Solucxoes Odontologicas, Londrina, Brazil). Based on an MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) composition, other ingredients of MTA Fillapex include resins and silica (Table 1). According to the manufacturer, it has high radiopacity, low solubility in contact with tissue fl uids, low expansion during setting, and excellent viscosity for insertion. It does not stain the tooth and promotes deposition of hard tissue at the root apex and perforation sites.The purpose of the study was to compare the fracture resistance of roots fi lled with gutta percha and sealed with one of these three root canal sealers: an epoxy-based root canal sealer AH Plus (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), a calcium silicate-based root canal sealer iRoot SP, and an MTA-based root canal sealer MTA Fillapex. The null hypothesis was that root canal sealers would not infl uence the fracture resistance of root-fi lled teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS Root canal p...

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Root Canal Sealers On Fracture Resistance Of Rootfmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Effect Of Root Canal Sealers On Fracture Resistance Of Rootfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance to fracture of roots filled with different sealers

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other studies, MTA as a root canal filling material strengthened the root against fracture. 20,21 In the current study, the MTA-based root canal sealer MTA Fillapex showed significantly higher fracture resistance compared with the negative control group, although it was not significantly different from the other root canal sealers tested. This may be due to the presence of resins in MTA Fillapex.…”

mentioning

confidence: 50%

Influence of Five Different Root Canal Sealers on Root Fracture Susceptibility

Bayram¹,

Bayram²

2015

Journal of Contemporary Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The purpose of the study was to compare the fracture resistance of roots filled with one of the following five root canal sealers: AH Plus, EndoRez, RealSeal, MTA Fillapex, and AcroSeal. The null hypothesis was that the type of root canal sealer would not influence the fracture resistance of root-filled teeth.Methods: Sixty-five maxillary central incisors were sectioned 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to obtain roots 14 mm in length. Roots were subjected to chemomechanical preparation using the rotary instruments of the Profile system. The obturation of root canals was performed with the following filling materials (n = 12): group I: AH Plus and gutta-percha (GP), group II: EndoRez and GP, group III: RealSeal and GP, group IV: MTA Fillapex and GP, group V: AcroSeal and GP, group VI: roots were instrumented but not filled (control; n = 5). After the appropriate setting time, each root was embedded in acrylic resin. The specimens were then subjected to fracture resistance testing using an Instron testing machine at 1 mm/min. Conclusion:All of the root canal sealers used in this study increased the fracture resistance of instrumented root canals.

show abstract

“…12 The cementation may be performed with resin composite, 13 glass ionomer cement 16 and resin cements 17 aiming to a greater adhesion between post and dentine wall of root canal. 18 Glass fiber posts are an alternative for the restoration of teeth with IR due they have modulus of elasticity similar to dentine. 19,20 The use of an apical plug with MTA has been suggested for endodontic therapy of teeth with IR, [21][22][23] resulting in a faster treatment and inducing the mineralized tissue formation in the root apex.…”

Section: 10mentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance of Teeth with Simulated Incomplete Rhizogenesis with Intraradicular Post or Root Canal Filling

Tanomaru‐Filho

Sivieri-Araújo²,

Guerreiro-Tanomaru

et al. 2014

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture strength (FS) of bovine incisors with simulated incomplete rhizogenesis (IR) after different intraradicular treatments. Materials and methods:Incomplete rhizogenesis was simulated by sectioning the crowns and roots of 40 bovine incisors. Root canal preparation was performed and the samples divided into 4 groups (n = 10): GI-negative control with intra-radicular preparation; GII-positive control without intra-radicular preparation; GIII-glass fiber post cemented with resin cement and GIVroot canal obturation with Epiphany/Resilon system. In GIII and GIV, 4.0 mm apical plugs of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) were done. The samples were embedded into cylinders with polystyrene resin, and the periodontal ligament was simulated with a medium-viscosity polyether-based impression material (Impregum Soft). The specimens were submitted to compressive fracture strength test (0.5 mm/min at 135º in relation to the long axis of the tooth) in a mechanical testing machine MTS 810. Data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05).Results: GIII produced the highest FS values (p < 0.05). GI and GIV showed similar FS results (p > 0.05) but smaller than GII (p < 0.05). Conclusion:Glass fiber intraradicular posts provided the FS increase of teeth with simulated incomplete rhizogenesis. Epiphany/Resilon root canal filling with MTA plug did not provide the increase of the fracture strength to teeth with simulated incomplete rhizogenesis. Clinical significance:The fiber post reinforces the root structure of teeth with incomplete rhizogenesis.

show abstract

Fracture resistance and reinforcement of immature roots with gutta percha, mineral trioxide aggregate and calcium phosphate bone cement: a standardized in vitro model

Cited by 29 publications

References 38 publications

Resistance to fracture of roots filled with different sealers

Resistance to fracture of roots filled with different sealers

Influence of Five Different Root Canal Sealers on Root Fracture Susceptibility

Resistance of Teeth with Simulated Incomplete Rhizogenesis with Intraradicular Post or Root Canal Filling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About