Comparison of the surface hardness among 3 materials used in an experimental apexification model under moist and dry environments

Victor Caronna,Van Himel,Qingzhao Yu,Jian-Feng Zhang,Kent Sabey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.12.005

Abstract:Introduction: Procedures used in single-visit or multiple-visit approaches to apical barrier creation were used with an experimental apexification model to test the surface hardness of 3 materials. The purpose of this study was to examine the microhardness of the materials after setting in moist or dry conditions. Methods: A simulated open apex and periapical environment model was created using polyethylene tubes placed into a porous block filled with phosphate-buffered saline. White ProRoot Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA; Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), EndoSequence Root Repair Material (ESRRM; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA), and Biodentine (BD; Septodont, Louisville, CO) were mixed and placed into the apical 4 mm of the tubes (N = 15). The moist group had a damp cotton pellet above the test materials (mineral trioxide aggregate or ESSRM) with Fuji II LC (GC America, Alsip, IL) sealing the coronal segment. The dry group had gutta-percha placed directly against the test materials with amalgam sealing the coronal segment. After 10 days of storage in 100% humidity at 37°C, samples were sectioned, and microhardness was independently measured at 2 mm and 4 mm from the apical end. Differences were assessed using analysis of variance and a Tukey post hoc test (α = .05). Results: Analysis of variance analyses showed no significant effect of wet or dry conditions on resultant material hardness. A Tukey post hoc test showed that using ESRRM and BD would not result in a significant difference in hardness, but using MTA would result in statistically significant different hardness values when compared with ESRRM or BD. Conclusions: Either a moist or dry environment could allow hardening of materials; thus, both methods could be acceptable for clinical treatment procedures.