Push-Out Bond Strength and Surface Microhardness of Calcium Silicate-Based Biomaterials: An in vitro Study

Abstract

of 1 mm/min. Samples were analyzed under a light microscope to determine the nature of bond failure. Ten samples (2 mm thick) were prepared for all the materials, and Vickers microhardness was determined using a digital hardness tester. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests at a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: Biodentine (42.02; 39.35 MPa) and ProRoot MTA (21.86; 34.13 MPa) showed significantly higher bond strengths than BioAggregate (6.63; 10.09 MPa) in coronal and apical root dentin, respectively ( p < 0.05). Biodentine also differed significantly from ProRoot MTA in coronal dentin. Bond failure was predominantly adhesive in Biodentine and ProRoot MTA, while BioAggregate showed predominantly mixed failure. ProRoot MTA (158.52 HV) showed significantly higher microhardness and BioAggregate (68.79 HV) showed the lowest hardness. Conclusion: Biodentine and ProRoot MTA showed higher bond strength and microhardness compared to BioAggregate. AbstractObjective: This was an in vitro evaluation of push-out bond strength and surface microhardness of calcium silicatebased biomaterials in coronal and apical root dentin. Materials and Methods: Ninety sections (2 mm thick) of coronal and apical root dentin were obtained from roots of 60 extracted teeth; the canals were enlarged to a standardized cavity diameter of 1.3 mm. Sections were randomly divided into 6 groups ( n = 15 per group), and cavities were filled with Biodentine TM , BioAggregate, or ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), according to the manufacturers' instructions. Push-out bond strength values were measured using a universal testing machine under a compressive load at a speed Significance of the StudyIn this study, the push-out bond strength and microhardness of 3 materials, ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, and BioAggregate, were compared. Biodentine and ProRoot MTA had higher bond strength and microhardness values than BioAggregate, and hence could be the materials of choice for root repair procedures and retrograde fillings.

Retention of BioAggregate and MTA as coronal plugs after intracanal medication for regenerative endodontic procedures: an ex vivo study

“…MTA showed better retention than BA. This finding is in accordance with previous studies [ 10 21 22 23 ], whereas it disagrees with another study in which both materials performed similarly [ 24 ]. In the latter study, MTA and BA were compared with Endosequence Root Repair Material (ERRM, Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA, USA), which recorded significantly higher bond strength than either material [ 24 ]; this could have masked the statistical significance of the difference between them if it existed.…”

“…The mode of failure of CSCs is usually adhesive [ 21 23 28 ]. In the present study, MTA showed a similar incidence of the different modes of failure, whereas, interestingly, the incidence of cohesive failure with 3-day-set BA was more than 3 times that of adhesive failure.…”

An in vitro Comparison of Bond Strength of Different Sealers/Obturation Systems to Root Dentin Using the Push-Out Test at 2 Weeks and 3 Months after Obturation

“…Moreover, incorporated calcium phosphates in the sealer facilitate a reaction with calcium hydroxide upon activation by the moisture that remains within the dentinal tubules, producing hydroxyapatite. Hydroxyapatite is coprecipitated within the calcium silicate hydrate phase [17] to produce a composite-like structure, reinforcing the set cement [18] . In this study, the bond strength of TotalFill BC TM was comparable to AH Plus ® /GP and higher than EndoREZ ® at 2 weeks, and this is consistent with a previous study [10] .…”

Does Adding Various Accelerators to Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Have a Negatively Effect on Push-Out Bond Strength?

“…The push-out test which was used in this study is frequently performed for evaluating the strength of calcium-silicate-based materials [22]. Chen et al [23] suggested that the pin diameter should be < 0.85 times the filler diameter, but not so small as to puncture the filler material.…”