journal article·2017-03-04Open access

Comparative evaluation of push-out bond strength of Neo MTA Plus with Biodentine and white ProRoot MTA

Sevinç Aktemur Türker, Emel Uzunoğlu, Burcu Bilgin

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the bond strength of a new calcium silicate cement, Neo MTA Plus (Avalon Biomed Inc. Bradenton, FL, U.S.A) by comparing ProRoot MTA and Biodentine.Material and Methods: Sixty dentin slices were instrumented to achieve a diameter of 1.3 mm. Group 1: white ProRoot MTA, group 2: Biodentine, group 3: Neo MTA Plus – G (powder mixed with gel), group 4: Neo MTA Plus – W (powder mixed with distilled water) were loaded into cavities. The push-out bond strength values were measured. Data were analyzed using Welch ANOVA with Bonferroni correction p = 0.05. Failure modes (adhesive, cohesive, and mixture) were analyzed.Results: The highest bond strength value was recorded in Neo MTA Plus mixed with gel (5.23 ± 1.78 MPa), whereas white ProRoot MTA (2.57 ± 0.66 MPa) had the lowest. Bond strength values of Neo MTA Plus mixed either with gel or with distilled water were statistically different from both white ProRoot MTA and Biodentine (2.61 ± 0.70 MPa) (p < 0.05). Adhesive failure was predominantly observed in all groups.Conclusion: Neo MTA Plus could be considered as alternatives to the ProRoot MTA and Biodentine due to its better performance in bonding to root dentin.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments · Dental materials and restorations · Dental Radiography and Imaging

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey

Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

References (23)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.joen.2009.07.00810.1016/j.joen.2009.07.008 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.00410.1016/j.dental.2015.01.004 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.joen.2009.09.00910.1016/j.joen.2009.09.009 ↗
4. 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02098.x10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02098.x ↗
5. 10.1111/edt.2011.27.issue-310.1111/edt.2011.27.issue-3 ↗
6. 10.1111/edt.2009.25.issue-310.1111/edt.2009.25.issue-3 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.joen.2014.01.04410.1016/j.joen.2014.01.044 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.joen.2015.02.03210.1016/j.joen.2015.02.032 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.joen.2013.11.00710.1016/j.joen.2013.11.007 ↗
10. 10.4103/0972-0707.11750410.4103/0972-0707.117504 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.03310.1016/j.joen.2012.11.033 ↗
12. 10.1111/iej.2013.46.issue-910.1111/iej.2013.46.issue-9 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.joen.2014.03.02510.1016/j.joen.2014.03.025 ↗
14. 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02108.x10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02108.x ↗
15. 10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.02210.1016/j.joen.2010.08.022 ↗
16. 10.1111/eos.2004.112.issue-410.1111/eos.2004.112.issue-4 ↗
17. 10.1111/iej.2010.43.issue-410.1111/iej.2010.43.issue-4 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.joen.2012.01.00110.1016/j.joen.2012.01.001 ↗
19. 10.1111/iej.2016.49.issue-210.1111/iej.2016.49.issue-2 ↗
20. 10.2334/josnusd.57.18510.2334/josnusd.57.185 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.joen.2014.11.00210.1016/j.joen.2014.11.002 ↗
22. 10.1111/iej.2014.47.issue-510.1111/iej.2014.47.issue-5 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.02510.1016/j.joen.2009.12.025 ↗