Citation Information :
Reddy NV, Srujana P, Konyala HR, Mareddy AR, Mohammad N. Sealing Ability of MTA vs Portland Cement in the Repair of Furcal Perforations of Primary Molars: A Dye Extraction Leakage Model—An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019; 12 (2):83-87.
Aim: The purpose of this present study is to compare the ability of MTA and Portland cement to seal furcal perforations in extracted primary molars using the dye extraction leakage model.
Materials and methods: Sixty primary molars were selected and randomly divided into four groups after access openings and furcal perforations were created in the pulp chamber floor. Group I (n = 20) in which perforations were repaired with MTA (ProRoot MTA, MTA-Angelus), group II (n = 20) in which perforations were repaired with the Portland cement, group III (n = 10) in which perforations were left unsealed (positive control), and group IV (n = 10) without perforations (negative control). All samples were subjected to 1% of basic fuchsin dye challenge followed by dye extraction with 65 wt% of nitric acid. Samples were analyzed using the automatic microplate spectrophotometer 545 nm and the readings were statistically analyzed.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the microleakage between MTA and Portland cement repair groups.
Conclusion: Portland cement provides an effective seal for primary teeth furcal perforations and can be considered a more economic substitute for MTA as a repair material enhancing the prognosis of perforated primary teeth that would otherwise be extracted.
Barr ES, Flaitz CM, et al. A retrospective radiographic evaluation of primary molar pulpectomies. Pediatr Dent 1991;13(1):4–9.
Kofman SH, Schneider-Friedman C, et al. Retrospective clinical study of pulp treatment with ferric sulfate and formocresol. Acta Stomatol Croat 2006;40(2):107–115.
Samuel A, Asokan S, et al. Evaluation of sealing ability of Biodentine™ and MTA in primary molars using scanning electron microscope: a randomized controlled in vitro trial. Contemp Clin Dent 2016;7(3): 322–325. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.188547.
Ahangari Z, Karami M. Evaluation of the sealing ability of Amalgam, MTA, Portland Cement and Coltozol in the repair of furcal perforations. Iran Endod J 2006;1(2):60–64.
McCabe PS. Avoiding perforations in endodontics. J Ir Dent Assoc 2006;52:139–148.
De-Deus G, Petrucelli V, et al. MTA vs portland cement as repair material for furcal perforations: a laboratory study using a polymicrobial leakage model. J Endod 2006;39(4):293–298. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006. 01096.x.
Shahi S, Rahini S, et al. Sealing ability of MTA and Portland cement for furcal perforation repair: a protein leakage study. J Oral Sci 2009;51(4):601–606. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.51.601.
Mangala MG, Chandra SM, et al. To evaluate the biocompatibility of the Indian portland cement with potential for use in dentistry: an animal study. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(6):440–444. DOI: 10.4103/0972- 0707.168800.
Tawil SBE, Dokky NAE, et al. Sealing ability of MTA vs Portland cement in the repair of furcal perforations of primary molars: a dye extraction leakage model. J Am Sci 2011;7(12):1037–1043.
De-Deus G, Reis C, et al. The ability of Portland cement, MTA, and MTA Bio to prevent through-and-through fluid movement in repaired furcal perforations. J Endod 2007;33(11):1374–1377. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.07.024.
Simon JH, Oglesby SW, et al. Sterilization of Portland Cement Endod, 8540 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1117, Los Angeles, California 90045. USC School of Dentistry microbiology lab.
Daoudi MF, Saunders WP. In vitro evaluation of furcal perforation repair using mineral trioxide aggregate or resin modified glass lonomer cement with and without the use of the operating microscope. J Endod 2002;28(7):512–515. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200207000- 00006.
Kaya S, Ayaz SG, et al. Comparing MTA and Ketac Molar easymix for furcation perforation repair using a volumetric method. Int Dent Res 2011;1(1):13–17. DOI: 10.5577/intdentres.2011.vol1.no1.3.
Khodary HM, Farsi DJ, et al. Sealing ability of four calcium containing cements used for repairing furcal perforations in primary teeth. J Contemp Clin Dent 2015;16(9):733–739.
Broon NJ, Braman TECM, et al. Healing of root perforations treated with MTA and Portland cement. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14(5):305–311. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572006000500002.
Neto JDS, Schnaider TB, et al. Portland cement with additives in the repair of furcation perforations in dogs. Acta Cir Bras 2012;27(11): 809–812. DOI: 10.1590/S0102-86502012001100011.
Hwang YC, Lee SH, et al. Chemical composition, radiopacity, and biocompatibility of portland cement with bismuth oxide. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107(3):96–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.11.015.
Borges AH, Bandeca MC, et al. Portland cement use in dental root perforations. A long term follow up. Case Rep Dent 2014. DOI: 10.1155/2014/637693.
Hashem AA, Hassanien EE. ProRoot MTA, MTA-Angelus and IRM used to repair large furcation perforations: sealability study. J Endod 2008;34(1):59–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.09.007.
Verissimo DM, Vale MS. Methodologies for assessment of apical and coronal leakage of endodontic filling materials: a critical review. J Oral Sci 2006;48(3):93–98. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.48.93.
Reddy DSR, Kommineni N, et al. Comparative evaluation of sealability of different root canal perforation repair materials by using a dyeextraction leakage method—An in vitro study. Ind. J Dent Sci 2013;5(4): 1–4.
Hashem AA, Hassanien EE. Pro Root MTA, MTA–Angelus and IRM used to repair large furcation perforations: sealability study. J Endod 2008;34(1):59–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.09.007.
Charrier M, Medioni E. Microleakage of three filling materials for furcation perforation. Eur Cell Mater 2007;13(1):9.