IADR Abstract Archives
Bioceramics’ Effects On Strength Of Immature Teeth Treated With Regenerative-Endodontic-Protocol
Objectives: To evaluate, using an experimental bovine tooth model, the fracture resistance of immature teeth after being treated with a regenerative-endodontic-protocol (REP) and sealed at the cervical area with different bioceramic materials.
Methods: Single rooted mandibular incisors were extracted from young bovines. Crowns were trimmed and roots sectioned apically to create a standard crown/root ratio. Pulp tissue was removed with barbed broaches and canals were enlarged with size 6 Peeso reamers to a standardized diameter. All teeth were treated with REP including irrigation with NaOCl and EDTA, intracanal medication with triple-antibiotic paste (Amoxicillin-Metronidazole-Ciprofloxacin) for 14 days, cervical seal with bioceramic materials followed by composite restoration. Teeth filled with gutta-percha (GP) instead of bioceramic materials served as controls. Teeth were divided into the 4 groups; Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) (n=11), Biodentine (n=11), TotalFill (n=10) and GP (n=11) and placed in acrylic blocks with simulated periodontal ligaments. Prepared teeth were then mounted onto an MTS® Hydraulic test System and subjected to an increasing compressive force at a test rate of 0.05mm/s at a 135° angle to the long axis of the tooth until fracture occurred. Load at fracture was recorded in Newton (N).
Results: Simulated immature teeth filled with TotalFill showed a higher peak load to fracture (mean±SEM: 774±140.3 N) compared to the other bioceramics (MTA: 540.3±46.55 N and Biodentine: 571.4±85.31 N). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the tested groups on the peak load to fracture (GP: 590.9±61.9 N, Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparison, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the tested bioceramic materials applied at the cervical area of simulated immature teeth treated with a regenerative protocol did not reinforce fracture resistance.
Methods: Single rooted mandibular incisors were extracted from young bovines. Crowns were trimmed and roots sectioned apically to create a standard crown/root ratio. Pulp tissue was removed with barbed broaches and canals were enlarged with size 6 Peeso reamers to a standardized diameter. All teeth were treated with REP including irrigation with NaOCl and EDTA, intracanal medication with triple-antibiotic paste (Amoxicillin-Metronidazole-Ciprofloxacin) for 14 days, cervical seal with bioceramic materials followed by composite restoration. Teeth filled with gutta-percha (GP) instead of bioceramic materials served as controls. Teeth were divided into the 4 groups; Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) (n=11), Biodentine (n=11), TotalFill (n=10) and GP (n=11) and placed in acrylic blocks with simulated periodontal ligaments. Prepared teeth were then mounted onto an MTS® Hydraulic test System and subjected to an increasing compressive force at a test rate of 0.05mm/s at a 135° angle to the long axis of the tooth until fracture occurred. Load at fracture was recorded in Newton (N).
Results: Simulated immature teeth filled with TotalFill showed a higher peak load to fracture (mean±SEM: 774±140.3 N) compared to the other bioceramics (MTA: 540.3±46.55 N and Biodentine: 571.4±85.31 N). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the tested groups on the peak load to fracture (GP: 590.9±61.9 N, Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparison, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the tested bioceramic materials applied at the cervical area of simulated immature teeth treated with a regenerative protocol did not reinforce fracture resistance.