An In-vitro Fracture Strength Assessment of Endodontically Treated Teeth with Different Root-end Materials

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth when the retrograde preparations were restored either with Biodentine or Endosequence BC RRM Fast set putty or Geristore. METHODS: One hundred and twenty human mandibular premolars were used and allocated randomly into five groups (n=24 each). Following conventional root canal treatment, and apical root resection, retrograde cavities of 3 mm were prepared using ultrasonic tips. Group 1 (intact, sound teeth), Group 2 (without root-end filling), Groups 3, 4 and 5were allocated for Biodentine, Endosequence BC RRM putty, and Geristore respectively. Thermo-mechanical cyclic loading (TMC) was performed for one section of samples in each group (n=12 each) following which immediate and after TMC fracture resistance was evaluated using the Instron machine. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple post-hoc procedures was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Intact teeth had shown the highest fracture strength values than all other four groups (P<0.05) and resected roots without root-end filling group exhibited the lowest resistance to fracture. Amongst the test groups, Endosequence BC RRM putty displayed improved fracture strength, and Geristore exhibited the least resistance to fracture. Fracture strength values were not statistically different among Endosequence fast set putty and Biodentine group samples immediately and after thermo-mechanical cyclic loading (P=0.5987 and 0.9999 respectively). The fracture strength was notsignificantly different between Geristore and without root-end filling groups (P=0.3530). CONCLUSION: Endodontically treated teeth with Endosequence BC RRM putty or Biodentine root-end filled teeth had shown better fracture resistance compared to Geristore. Retrofilling with Geristore was not able to improve fracture strength of root canal-treated teeth.