Authors : Aarshati Vyas, Shilpa Shah, Nishtha K Patel, Krushnangi Yagnik, Vyoma Hirpara, Rajvi Shah
DOI : 10.18231/j.ijce.2022.038
Volume : 7
Issue : 4
Year : 2022
Page No : 172-176
Aim: To compare the fracture resistance of immature teeth subjected to apexification with three different bioactive materials.
Materials and Methods: Sixty non-carious, single-rooted premolar teeth with straight canals were decoronated at cementoenamel junction, standardizing 13 mm length. After access preparation, the canals were accessed with #10 K-file followed by biomechanical preparation using Ni-Ti ProTaper Gold rotary files upto F3 and irrigation was done using 2 mL 3% NaOCl, 17% EDTA and 5 ml of saline. To simulate immature roots with open apices, #1–5 Peeso reamers were passed through the apex enlarging to 1.5 mm diameter. Later, samples were randomly divided into 4 different groups with 5mm apical plug in each group, Group I: GuttaFlow Bioseal, Group II: Biodentine, Group III: EndoSeal MTA and Group IV: Control group. Samples were filled with an apical plug of 5mm. Later, remaining part of the root canals was obturated with gutta-percha cones and AH Plus sealer by lateral condensation. To stimulate periodontal ligament lining of the root surfaces, C-Silicone light body impression material was used. The samples were stored for 1 week in 100% humidity at 37?C to ensure that the sealer set in an environment that simulate the clinical situation. Later, fracture resistance was evaluated using the universal testing machine.
Results: Group II (Biodentine) showed highest fracture reisistance followed by Group I (GuttaFlow BioSeal) and Group III (EndoSeal MTA)
Conclusion: Biodentine apexification groups showed highest fracture resistance values followed by GuttaFlow Bioseal and the least values were shown by EndoSeal MTA.
Keywords: Fracture resistance, apical plug, immature apex, GuttaFlow BioSeal