Compressive strength of different tricalcium silicate–based materials used for primary teeth: in vitro study

Authors

  • Avin Nanakali P.O.P Department (M.Sc. master student), College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University
  • Sazan Sh. Salem P.O.P Department, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15218/edj.2020.09

Keywords:

Biodentine, Compressive Strength, HP Repair MTA, ProRoot

Abstract

Background and Objectives: One of the most universally accepted properties of a material is to have a good physical and mechanical properties to withstand the masticatory forces which is one of the major problem in dentistry. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the compressive strength of three different types of Tricalcium silicate based materials: (High plasticity repair mineral trioxide aggregate, ProRoot and Biodentine).

Materials and methods: Ninety samples from studied materials (4mm diameter and 6mm height) were selected and divided into three equal groups according to the materials used then after each group was divided into three equal sub-groups according to the time (1 day, 1 week and 3 weeks). Compressive strength was evaluated in accordance with ISO 9917-1: 2007 recommendation. Specimens were crushed along their long axis using a universal testing machine. The load was recorded in mega Pascal. Statistical package for the social science (SPSS version 23) program was used to perform the statistical.

Results: Biodentine showed significantly the highest compressive strength values than the other materials (P < 0.001), whereas High plasticity repair MTA have the lowest compressive strength values. There was no significant difference between ProRoot and HP Repair MTA-angelus. The compressive strength of ProRoot MTA was significantly lower than Biodentine but significantly higher than HP repair MTA Angelus.

Conclusion: Biodentine and ProRoot have better in mechanical properties than the HP Repair MTA. The time had correspondingly effectively increased impact on the dental materials used in this study.

References

1. Dammaschke T, Gerth HU, Zuchner H, Schafer E. Chemical and physical surface and bulk material characterization of white ProRoot MTA and two Portland cements. Dent Mater 2005; 21(8):731-8.

2. Khan J, El-Housseiny A, Alamoudi N. Mineral trioxide aggregate use in pediatric dentistry: A literature review. J Oral Hyg Health 2016; 4(209).

3. Bakland L. Management of traumatically injured pulps in immature teeth using MTA. J Californ Dent Assoc 2000; 28(11):855-8.

4. Holland R, de SOUZA V, Murata SS, Nery MJ, Bernabé P, Otoboni Filho JA, et al. Healing process of dog dental pulp after pulpotomy and pulp covering with mineral trioxide aggregate or Portland cement. Braz Dent J 2001:109-13.

5. Eidelman E, Holan G, Fuks AB. Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a preliminary report. Pediat Dent 2001; 23(1):15-8.

6. O'Sullivan SM, Hartwell GR. Obturation of a retained primary mandibular second molar using mineral trioxide aggregate: a case report. J Endod 2001; 27(11):703-5.

7. Hayashi M, Shimizu A, Ebisu S. MTA for obturation of mandibular central incisors with open apices: case report. J Endod 2004; 30(2),120-2.

8. Vizgirda PJ, Liewehr FR, Patton WR, McPherson JC, Buxton TB. A comparison of laterally condensed gutta-percha, thermoplasticized gutta-percha, and mineral trioxide aggregate as root canal filling materials. J Endod 2004; 30(2);103-6.

9. Witherspoon DE, Ham K. One-visit apexification: technique for inducing root-end barrier formation in apical closures. PPAD 2001; 13(6):455-60; quiz 62.

10. Shabahang S, Torabinejad M. Treatment of teeth with open apices using mineral trioxide aggregate. PPAD 2000; 12(3):315-20; quiz 22.

11. Holland R, de Souza V, Nery MJ, Otoboni Filho JA, Bernabé PFE, Dezan Jr E. Reaction of dogs' teeth to root canal filling with mineral trioxide aggregate or a glass ionomer sealer. J Endod 1999; 25(11):728-30.

12. Cintra LTA, Benetti F, de Azevedo Queiroz ÍO, de Araújo Lopes JM, de Oliveira SHP, Araújo GS, et al. Cytotoxicity, biocompatibility, and biomineralization of the new high-plasticity MTA material. J Endod 2017; 43(5):774-8.

13. Malkondu Ö, Kazandağ MK, Kazazoğlu E. A review on biodentine, a contemporary dentine replacement and repair material. BioMed Res Int 2014; 2014.

14. Torabinejad M, Hong C, McDonald F, Ford TP.Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material. J Endod 1995; 21(7):349-53.

15. Islam I, Chng H, Yap A. X‐ray diffraction analysis of mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement. Int Endod J 2006; 39(3):220-5.

16. Kayahan MB, Nekoofar MH, McCann A, Sunay H, Kaptan RF, Meraji N, et al. Effect of acid etching procedures on the compressive strength of 4 calcium silicate–based endodontic cements. J Endod 2013; 39(12):1646-8.

17. Elnaghy AM. Influence of acidic environment on properties of biodentine and white mineral trioxide aggregate: a comparative study. J Endod 2014; 40(7):953-7.

18. Grech L, Mallia B, Camilleri J. Investigation of the physical properties of tricalcium silicate cement-based root-end filling materials. Dent Mater 2013; 29(2):e20-e8.

19. Alsubait SA. Effects of different acid etching times on the compressive strength of three calcium silicate-based endodontic materials. J Int Oral Healt 2016; 8(3):328.

20. Dianat O, Naseri M, Tabatabaei SF. Evaluation of properties of mineral trioxide aggregate with methyl cellulose as liquid. J Dent (Tehran, Iran) 2017; 14(1):7.

21. Parirokh M, Torabinejad M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature reviewPart I: chemical, physical, and antibacterial properties. J Endod 2010; 36(1):16-27.

22. Lucas CP, Viapiana R, Bosso-Martelo R, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Camilleri J, Tanomaru-Filho M. Physicochemical properties and dentin bond strength of a tricalcium silicatebased retrograde material. Braz Dent J 2017; 28(1):51-6.

23. Camilleri J, Sorrentino F, Damidot D. Investigation of the hydration and bioactivity of radiopacified tricalcium silicate cement, Biodentine and MTA Angelus. Dent Mater 2013; 29(5):580-93.

24. Rajasekharan S, Martens L, Cauwels R, Verbeeck R. Biodentine™ material characteristics and clinical applications: a review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediat Dent 2014; 15(3):147-58.

25. Butt N, Talwar S, Chaudhry S, Nawal RR, Yadav S, Bali A. Comparison of physical and mechanical properties of mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine. Indian J Dent Res 2014; 25(6):692-7.

26. Goel M, Bala S, Sachdeva G. Comperative evaluation of MTA, calcium hydroxide and Portland cement as a root end filling materials: A comprehensive review. Indian J Dent Sci 2011; 3(5).

27. Camilleri J. The chemical composition of mineral trioxide aggregate. 2008; 11(4):141.

28. Cutajar A, Mallia B, Abela S, Camilleri J. Replacement of radiopacifier in mineral trioxide aggregate; characterization and determination of physical properties. Dent Mater 2011; 27(9):879-91.

Downloads

Published

2020-06-06

How to Cite

1.
Nanakali A, Salem SS. Compressive strength of different tricalcium silicate–based materials used for primary teeth: in vitro study. EDJ [Internet]. 2020 Jun. 6 [cited 2022 Jun. 26];3(1):62-70. Available from: https://pha.hmu.edu.krd/index.php/journal/article/view/81

Issue

Section

Original Articles