Push-out Bond-strength of Biodentine and Conventional Root Perforation Repair Materials

Methods: : The coronal part of freshly extracted maxillary canine teeth was separated and the midroot dentin was horizontally sectioned into 1-mm thick slices. The existing canal space of each dentin slice was enlarged with a diamond bur to create a standardized hole having 1.4 mm in diameter. The samples were randomly divided into five groups (n=40) and the following materials were placed respectively; Biodentine™ (Septodont,France), MTA (ProRoot MTA; Dentsply, TulsaDental,OK), Amalgam (Cavex Avalloy,Holland),  Compomer (DyractAP,Dentsply DeTrey,Germany) and IRM (Dentsply,Germany). The samples were wrapped in wet gauzes to allow the initial set for 10 minutes and then divided into three subgroups (n=10) to be immersed  into 3,5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)(CaglayanKimya, Turkey), 2% chlorhexidine gluconate(CHX)(Klorhex,Turkey) or saline solution(Ý.E Ulagay,Turkey) for 30 minutes. In the control group (n=10), no irrigation was done and a wet cotton pellet was placed over each test materials. All samples were then allowed to set for 48 hours in an incubator. Push-out test was performed in a universal testing-machine to  measure  the  force  required  to  displace  the  material  from  each slice (1mm/min). 

Results: The push-out bond-strength of MTA was the lowest of all groups. Biodentine showed significantly higher push-out bond-strength than MTA (P<0.05). Statistical ranking of push-out bond-strength values was as follows: Compomer > Amalgam ≥ IRM ≥ Biodentine > MTA. The push-out bond-strength of Compomer, Amalgam, IRM and Biodentine was not significantly different from the NaOCl, CHX and saline solutions while MTA lost strength when exposed to CHX.

Conclusions: Biodentine showed considerable performance as a perforation repair material even after exposure to various endodontic-irrigants while MTA had the lowest push-out bond-strength values to root dentin compared with other materials.