Volume 9, Issue 2 (September- 2020)
Caspian J Dent Res 2020, 9(2): 57-62 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Tavasoli R, Saeidi A, Mahmoudi E, Barijani N, Gholinia H. Comparison of the push-out bond strength between root mineral trioxide aggregate( MTA) and calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement. Caspian J Dent Res 2020; 9 (2) :57-62
URL: http://cjdr.ir/article-1-306-en.html
URL: http://cjdr.ir/article-1-306-en.html
, Dental Materials Research Center , Health Research Institute , Babol University of Medical Sciences , Babol , IR Iran. , akam_ir@yahoo.com
Abstract: (3750 Views)
Introduction: Root mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a type of MTA that has been introduced in the Iranian market. There have been few studies on this substance. This study compared the push-out bond strength of Root MTA and CEM cement, which were both Iranian products.
Materials & Methods: This in vitro study was performed on 20 extracted maxillary incisors. Samples were divided in two groups. The canals of the first group were filled with Root MTA and the second group by CEM cement. In order to investigate the push-out bond strength, the device applied a force in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the sample so that the desired materials would fail. Each sample was classified into one of three types of failureincluding adhesive (failure in the material and dentin interface), cohesive (failure in the material itself) or a combination of both.
Results: There was no significant difference between the mean pressure on teeth for the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the frequencies of different types of failure between the two groups (P>0.05). Cohesive failure in the CEM group was twice as high as in the MTA group (P>0.05).
Conclusion:There was no any significant difference between the push-out bond strength of CEM cement and Root MTA cement. These findings demonstrated that Root MTA material showed a satisfactory result in the bond strength test compared to CEM material, and could be used as an alternative to CEM cement.
Materials & Methods: This in vitro study was performed on 20 extracted maxillary incisors. Samples were divided in two groups. The canals of the first group were filled with Root MTA and the second group by CEM cement. In order to investigate the push-out bond strength, the device applied a force in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the sample so that the desired materials would fail. Each sample was classified into one of three types of failureincluding adhesive (failure in the material and dentin interface), cohesive (failure in the material itself) or a combination of both.
Results: There was no significant difference between the mean pressure on teeth for the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the frequencies of different types of failure between the two groups (P>0.05). Cohesive failure in the CEM group was twice as high as in the MTA group (P>0.05).
Conclusion:There was no any significant difference between the push-out bond strength of CEM cement and Root MTA cement. These findings demonstrated that Root MTA material showed a satisfactory result in the bond strength test compared to CEM material, and could be used as an alternative to CEM cement.
Type of Study: Research Paper |
Subject:
Endodontics
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
