In Vitro SEM Comparison of Marginal Adaptation in Retrograde Fillings: Neoputty Vs. ProRoot MTA

Document Type : Original articles

Authors

1 Department of Endodontics, Future university in Egypt.‎

2 Dean-professor of Endodontics, Faculty of dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

3 professor of Endodontics faculty of dentistry ain shams university,professor of Endodontics faculty of dentistry Galala university,

Abstract

Aim: In terms of marginal adaptation, the research set out to compare and contrast Neoputty MTA with Proroot MTA, two retrograde filling materials.
Materials and methods: We retrieved forty anterior single-rooted teeth from the maxilla that had just been removed and cleaned them with sodium hypochlorite. After amputating the specimens at the CEJ, a size #10 K-file was used to confirm that the canals were patent. shaping, cleaning and obturation of the canals were followed. Using a diamond stone with water cooling, the teeth were resected 3mm from the apex, perpendicular to the long axis of the root. Using a Satalec ultrasonic tip AS3D, root-end cavities were produced to a class I design, with a depth of 3mm and an apical diameter of 1mm. A periodontal probe was used to standardise the preparation depth of 3mm. Twenty teeth were randomly assigned to each of the two groups.Two groups were given retrograde materials: one was given Neoputty MTA and the other Proroot MTA. Using SEM, we checked the materials in both groups for marginal adaptation. The two groups were compared using a paired sample t-test.
Results: The following was the mean gap at the material-dentin contact, as shown by quantitative SEM observations: When compared with ProRoot MTA, Neoputty MTA exhibited a smaller gap distance.When comparing Proroot MTA with Neoputty MTA for marginal adaptation, there was no statistically significant difference.
Conclusion: Neoputty MTA could be used instead of Proroot MTA as a retrograde filling material.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics