Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 200
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 95-99

A comparative evaluation of sealing ability of three perforation repair materials using a field emission gun-scanning electron microscope

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be) University Dental College and Hospital, Sangli, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Saquib Mulla
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be) University, Dental College and Hospital, Sangli-Miraj Road, Wanlesswadi, Sangli, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sej.sej_55_19

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: The study aimed to assess the sealing ability of Biodentine™, ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), and Super-EBA as furcation perforation repair materials using field emission gun-scanning electron microscope (FEG-SEM). Materials and Methods: Thirty-six extracted human permanent mandibular molar teeth were collected and cleaned. Standard access cavity preparation was made, and intentional perforation was created in each of the access cavity-prepared teeth using #12 round bur. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups each containing 12 teeth. The perforations were sealed as follows: Group A with Biodentine™, Group B with ProRoot MTA, and Group C with Super-EBA. The repair materials for all the three groups were evaluated for marginal adaptation using FEG-SEM. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's honest significance test. Results: Quantitative FEG-SEM observations illustrated that the mean gap at the dentin–furcation repair material interface was as follows: Biodentine (3.01 ± 0.37 μm), ProRoot MTA (4.98 ± 0.68 μm), and Super-EBA (8.03 ± 0.68 μm). The difference between Biodentine™ and ProRoot MTA was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Individually, Biodentine and ProRoot MTA showed statistically significant differences when compared to Super-EBA (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The sealing ability of ProRoot MTA and Biodentine™ as a repair material of furcation perforation was better than Super-EBA.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded458    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal