Cargando…

Push-out bond strength of intra-orifice barrier materials: Bulk-fill composite versus calcium silicate cement

Background. The aim of this study was to compare the push-out bond strengths of calcium silicate-based ProRoot MTA and Biodentine cements and SureFil SDR and EverX Posterior bulk-fill composite resins. Methods. Twenty-four single-rooted maxillary central incisors were sectioned below the cementoenam...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Özyurek, Taha, Uslu, Gülşah, Yilmaz, Koray
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Tabriz University of Medical Sciences 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5928476/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29732015
http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2018.002
_version_ 1783319250298994688
author Özyurek, Taha
Uslu, Gülşah
Yilmaz, Koray
author_facet Özyurek, Taha
Uslu, Gülşah
Yilmaz, Koray
author_sort Özyurek, Taha
collection PubMed
description Background. The aim of this study was to compare the push-out bond strengths of calcium silicate-based ProRoot MTA and Biodentine cements and SureFil SDR and EverX Posterior bulk-fill composite resins. Methods. Twenty-four single-rooted maxillary central incisors were sectioned below the cementoenamel junction, and the root canals were instrumented using rotary files. Thereafter, a parallel post drill was used to obtain a standardized root canal dimension. The roots were randomly assigned to one of the following groups with respect to the intra-orifice barrier used: ProRoot MTA; Biodentine; SureFil SDR; EverX Posterior. Five 1-mm-thick sections were obtained from the coronal aspect of each root. Push-out bond strength testing was performed and data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc Dunn tests (P<0.05). Results. SureFil SDR and EverX Posterior bulk-fill composite resins’ bond strengths were significantly higher than ProRoot MTA and Biodentine calcium silicate cements. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between bulk-fill composite resins values and calcium silicate cement values. Conclusion. Within the limitations of present study, calcium silicate-based ProRoot MTA cement’s push-out bond strength was lower than those of Biodentine, SureFil SDR and EverX Posterior materials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5928476
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59284762018-05-04 Push-out bond strength of intra-orifice barrier materials: Bulk-fill composite versus calcium silicate cement Özyurek, Taha Uslu, Gülşah Yilmaz, Koray J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects Original Article Background. The aim of this study was to compare the push-out bond strengths of calcium silicate-based ProRoot MTA and Biodentine cements and SureFil SDR and EverX Posterior bulk-fill composite resins. Methods. Twenty-four single-rooted maxillary central incisors were sectioned below the cementoenamel junction, and the root canals were instrumented using rotary files. Thereafter, a parallel post drill was used to obtain a standardized root canal dimension. The roots were randomly assigned to one of the following groups with respect to the intra-orifice barrier used: ProRoot MTA; Biodentine; SureFil SDR; EverX Posterior. Five 1-mm-thick sections were obtained from the coronal aspect of each root. Push-out bond strength testing was performed and data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc Dunn tests (P<0.05). Results. SureFil SDR and EverX Posterior bulk-fill composite resins’ bond strengths were significantly higher than ProRoot MTA and Biodentine calcium silicate cements. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between bulk-fill composite resins values and calcium silicate cement values. Conclusion. Within the limitations of present study, calcium silicate-based ProRoot MTA cement’s push-out bond strength was lower than those of Biodentine, SureFil SDR and EverX Posterior materials. Tabriz University of Medical Sciences 2018 2018-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5928476/ /pubmed/29732015 http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2018.002 Text en © 2018 Özyürek et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article published and distributed by Tabriz University of Medical Sciences under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Özyurek, Taha
Uslu, Gülşah
Yilmaz, Koray
Push-out bond strength of intra-orifice barrier materials: Bulk-fill composite versus calcium silicate cement
title Push-out bond strength of intra-orifice barrier materials: Bulk-fill composite versus calcium silicate cement
title_full Push-out bond strength of intra-orifice barrier materials: Bulk-fill composite versus calcium silicate cement
title_fullStr Push-out bond strength of intra-orifice barrier materials: Bulk-fill composite versus calcium silicate cement
title_full_unstemmed Push-out bond strength of intra-orifice barrier materials: Bulk-fill composite versus calcium silicate cement
title_short Push-out bond strength of intra-orifice barrier materials: Bulk-fill composite versus calcium silicate cement
title_sort push-out bond strength of intra-orifice barrier materials: bulk-fill composite versus calcium silicate cement
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5928476/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29732015
http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2018.002
work_keys_str_mv AT ozyurektaha pushoutbondstrengthofintraorificebarriermaterialsbulkfillcompositeversuscalciumsilicatecement
AT uslugulsah pushoutbondstrengthofintraorificebarriermaterialsbulkfillcompositeversuscalciumsilicatecement
AT yilmazkoray pushoutbondstrengthofintraorificebarriermaterialsbulkfillcompositeversuscalciumsilicatecement