Physical properties and hydration behavior of a fast-setting bioceramic endodontic material

Abstract

BackgroundTo investigate the physical properties and the hydration behaviour of the fast-setting bioceramic iRoot FS Fast Set Root Repair Material (iRoot FS) and three other endodontic cements.MethodsiRoot FS, Endosequence Root Repair Material Putty (ERRM Putty), gray and white mineral trioxide aggregate (G-MTA & W-MTA), and intermediate restorative material (IRM) were evaluated. The setting time was measured using ANSI/ADA standards. Microhardness was evaluated using the Vickers indentation test. Compressive strength and porosity were investigated at 7 and 28 days. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) was employed for the hydration test.ResultsiRoot FS had the shortest setting time of the four bioceramic cements (p < .001). The microhardness values of iRoot FS, ERRM Putty and MTA increased at different rates over the 28 days period. At day one, ERRM Putty had the lowest microhardness of the bioceramic cements (p < .001), but reached the same level as MTA at 4, 7 and 28 days. The microhardness of iRoot FS was lower than that of W-MTA at 7 and 28 days (p < .05). The porosity of the materials did not change after 7 days (p < .05). The compressive strength values at 28 days were significantly greater for all bioceramic groups compared to those at 7 days (p < .01). ERRM Putty had the highest compressive strength and the lowest porosity of the evaluated bioceramic cements (p < .05), followed by iRoot FS, W-MTA, and G-MTA, respectively. DSC showed that iRoot FS hydrated fastest, inducing an intense exothermic reaction. The ERRM Putty did not demonstrate a clear exothermic peak during the isothermal calorimetry test.ConclusionsiRoot FS had a faster setting time and hydrating process than the other bioceramic cements tested. The mechanical properties of iRoot FS, G-MTA and W-MTA were relatively similar.

Effect of Sodium Hypochlorite on Push-out Bond Strength of Four Calcium Silicate-based Endodontic Materials when used for repairing Perforations on Human Dentin: An in vitro Evaluation

“…Although no clinically relevant minimum value has been universally proposed, higher push-out bond strength is more desirable. 21 This study evaluated the effect of NaOCl, the most widely accepted endodontic irrigating solution, on the push-out bond strength of new, fast set CSCs in the early setting phase. In our study, PMTA was chosen as a gold standard material because it is widely used for perforation repair in endodontics.…”

Novel Bioceramic Root Repair Materials: Review of the Literature

“…BioAggregate, in turn, compared to other bioceramic materials has the weakest CS results and that is most probably directly associated with the high water-to-powder ratio [8]. As far as EndoSequence is concerned, its compressive strength is significantly higher than white and grey MTA [3].…”

“…in furcal perforation repair. It is one of the indicators of the setting and strength of a material [3]. In a study by Butt at al.…”

Mineral Trioxide Aggregate: A review of clinical usage and investigations of the effects of modifying particle size

“…2 Therefore, MTA cements that lack mixing water need the intentional addition of water, or otherwise they will not solidify and hence will have no compressive strength. 234 Dry-stored and dry-tested ProRoot MTA has a compressive strength of 27 MPa, 235 while the reported compressive strengths of MTA cements stored in water have reached 86.2 MPa, 236 iRoot FS and iRoot BP, when stored using an accelerated setting method in a hot water bath, have produced compressive strengths of 96 MPa and 177 MPa, respectively. 234 There are no known published results using the ISO 9917.1 test for MTA sealers.…”

“…These samples were cured in wet conditions rather than dry conditions; 144, 236, 242 # In this study, the ISO test was modified using an accelerated setting method in a hot water bath. 234 Genotoxicity testing is a series of in vitro and, under some circumstances, in vivo tests involving assessment of gene mutations in bacteria, chromosomal damage in mammalian cells, the mouse lymphoma tk assay and the mammalian cell micronucleus test for chromosomal damage. In vivo tests can include analysis of bone marrow cells or micronuclei in bone marrow or peripheral blood erythrocytes.…”