IADR Abstract Archives
Comparative Analysis of Sealing ability of Biodentine, Mineral Trioxide aggregate (MTA) and intermediate restorative (IRM) in Furcal Perforation: An In-vitro study
Objective: To compare the sealing abilities (Microleakage in mm) of Biodentine, MTA and IRM in repair of furcal perforation.
Materials and methods: An in-vitro study was performed in Aga Khan University Hospital dental clinics. A total of 120 extracted teeth were evaluated and then randomly divided into three equal groups. An endodontic access cavity will be prepared in each molar with straight fissure bur. The artificial perforation will be created in the center of furcation area using a round bur #2(1mm) in a high speed hand piece and then repaired with Biodentine, MTA, and IRM. One-way ANOVA was used to assess the difference among the sealing abilities of Biodentine, MTA and IRM. Post-hoc Tukey test was applied for pairwise comparison among these groups. Level of significance was kept at ?0.05.
Results: Mean sealing ability turned out to be 0.52 ± 0.47, 0.57 ± 0.59 and 2.75 ± 0.50 for Biodentine, MTA and IRM, respectively. Statistically significant difference was noted among the experimental groups (biodentine, IRM and MTA) in sealing the furcal perforation (p-value <0.001). There was statistically significant difference when IRM was compared with Biodentine and MTA. IRM appeared to be the poorest among the groups in sealing the perforation defects. Whereas MTA and biodentine performed similar in sealing the furcation perforations. However, we failed to find any such difference between Biodentine and MTA.
Materials and methods: An in-vitro study was performed in Aga Khan University Hospital dental clinics. A total of 120 extracted teeth were evaluated and then randomly divided into three equal groups. An endodontic access cavity will be prepared in each molar with straight fissure bur. The artificial perforation will be created in the center of furcation area using a round bur #2(1mm) in a high speed hand piece and then repaired with Biodentine, MTA, and IRM. One-way ANOVA was used to assess the difference among the sealing abilities of Biodentine, MTA and IRM. Post-hoc Tukey test was applied for pairwise comparison among these groups. Level of significance was kept at ?0.05.
Results: Mean sealing ability turned out to be 0.52 ± 0.47, 0.57 ± 0.59 and 2.75 ± 0.50 for Biodentine, MTA and IRM, respectively. Statistically significant difference was noted among the experimental groups (biodentine, IRM and MTA) in sealing the furcal perforation (p-value <0.001). There was statistically significant difference when IRM was compared with Biodentine and MTA. IRM appeared to be the poorest among the groups in sealing the perforation defects. Whereas MTA and biodentine performed similar in sealing the furcation perforations. However, we failed to find any such difference between Biodentine and MTA.