3.8 Article

Volumetric Evaluation of Voids and Gaps of Different Calcium-Silicate Based Materials Used in Furcal Perforations: A Micro-CT Study

Journal

DENTISTRY JOURNAL
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/dj10030041

Keywords

furcal perforation; gaps; micro-computed tomography; voids

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the gaps and voids of different generations and handling properties of calcium-silicate based materials in simulated furcal perforations. The results showed that there were gaps and voids in all samples, with the BC group having the least gap formation and a significant difference compared to other groups.
This study aimed at evaluating volumetrically gaps and voids of calcium-silicate based materials of different generations and handling properties (BC-Endosequence BC RRM-Fast Set Condensable Putty, MTA-ProRoot MTA, and BIO-Biodentine) in simulated furcal perforations in an ex vivo setup by microcomputed tomography (Micro-CT) analysis. Thirty-six extracted human mandibular molars with sound furcation areas were selected. Standardized perforations were created in the furcation area of the pulp chamber using #4 diamond burs. The specimens were randomly assigned to three groups (BC, MTA and BIO; n = 12). Samples were then scanned (SkyScan 1172; Bruker-microCT, Kontich, Belgium), and three-dimensional (3D) images reconstructed. The relative volume of gaps (VG%) and voids (VV%) present on each material was calculated. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's HSD test (p < 0.05). Mean VG% for BC, MTA, and BIO groups were, respectively, 0.513%, 1.128%, 1.460%, with BC presenting statistically (p < 0.05) fewer gaps formation than the other groups. Mean VV% were, respectively, 0.018%, 0.037%, and 0.065%. The was no statistical difference regarding VV%. There were no gap-free and void-free samples. BC group had the lowest VG% among the groups with a significant statistical difference (p < 0.05).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available