Interfacial adaptation of NeoMTA Plus, BioRoot RCS and MTA in root‐end cavities: A micro‐CT study

• Published in: Microscopy research and technique Vol. 87; no. 1; pp. 172 - 178
• Main Authors: Santos, Murilo Mancio, Só, Gabriel Barcelos, Siocheta, Giovana, Jahnke, Leonardo Thomasi, Krabbe, Wesley Misael, Pinheiro, Lucas Siqueira, Só, Marcus Vinicius Reis, Rosa, Ricardo Abreu
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.01.2024; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Adaptation; apical surgery; Cavities; Computed tomography; endodontics; Evaluation; Fillers; Holes; micro‐computed tomography; Roots; root‐end filling material; Tomography; Variance analysis; Zinc oxide; endodontics; root-end filling material; micro-computed tomography; apical surgery
• ISSN: 1059-910X; 1097-0029
• DOI: 10.1002/jemt.24421

Aim This study aimed to use the micro‐computed tomography to evaluate the interfacial adaptation and the presence of gaps of NeoMTA Plus, BioRoot RCS, and MTA in the root‐end cavities. Methodology Thirty standardized bovine roots measuring 15 mm in length were selected. Chemical–mechanical preparation was performed up to instrument #80 and obturation with the cold lateral compaction technique with cement based on zinc oxide and eugenol. The roots were kept at 37°C for 7 days. Afterward, apicectomy of the apical 3 mm and a root‐end filling cavity was performed at 3 mm depth. Micro‐computed tomography (micro‐CT) was performed to measure the volume of the retroactivity. The roots were divided by stratified randomization into three groups according to the retro‐end filling material: NeoMTA Plus, BioRoot RCS, and MTA. A new micro‐CT was performed to assess the presence of voids in the root‐end filling material and between it and the canal wall. One‐way ANOVA and Tukey tests were performed using the BioEstat 4.0 program. Results There was no difference in the initial volume values of the root‐end cavities (p > .05). After the insertion of root‐end filling materials, the most significant volumes of voids were observed in the NeoMTA Plus group (p < .05), with no difference for the BioRoot RCS and MTA Angelus groups (p > .05). Conclusion Micro‐computed tomography showed that MTA and BioRoot RCS have better interfacial adaptation and presented fewer number of gaps than NeoMTA Plus when used as root‐end filling materials. Research Highlights Micro‐computed tomography evaluation of different root‐end fillings materials. Micro‐computed tomography evaluation of interfacial adaptation and presence of gaps of three different root‐end fillings materials.