Comparative evaluation of biodentine, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, cention-N, and bulk-fill flowable composite on fracture resistance in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study
Aim: To assess the fracture resistance provided by four intraorifice barrier materials: biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fosses, France), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (GC Gold label 2 LC Light Cured Universal Restorative, GC Products, Japan), cention-N (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan,...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2025-04-01
|
| Series: | Endodontology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/endo.endo_247_24 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1839639731095207936 |
|---|---|
| author | Parthasarathi Mondal Utpal Halder Kaushik Mistry Snigdho Das Kallol Kumar Saha Debjyoti Karmakar |
| author_facet | Parthasarathi Mondal Utpal Halder Kaushik Mistry Snigdho Das Kallol Kumar Saha Debjyoti Karmakar |
| author_sort | Parthasarathi Mondal |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Aim:
To assess the fracture resistance provided by four intraorifice barrier materials: biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fosses, France), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (GC Gold label 2 LC Light Cured Universal Restorative, GC Products, Japan), cention-N (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Lichtenstein), and bulk-fill flowable composite (BFFC) (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) in endodontically treated teeth.
Methods:
An in vitro comparative study, with a sample size of 50 freshly extracted mandibular second premolars. The teeth were randomly assigned into four experimental groups (n = 10 each) based on the type of intraorifice barrier applied: Group I (biodentine), Group II (RMGIC), Group III (cention-N), and Group IV (BFFC). A control group (n = 10) was included with no intraorifice barrier. Universal testing equipment (Instron, USA) was used to apply a compressive load to each specimen to evaluate its fracture resistance.
Results:
Group III exhibited the highest fracture resistance (906.27 ± 51.91 N), followed by Group IV (818.05 ± 57.93 N), Group I (684.73 ± 14.70 N), Group II (613.83 ± 59.30 N), and the control group (237.80 ± 18.87 N). Considerable differences were identified among the groups (P < 0.0001).
Conclusion:
Cention-N and BFFC provide superior fracture resistance compared to other tested materials. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a81f15d69d2341168c0167171e17c4f1 |
| institution | Matheson Library |
| issn | 0970-7212 2543-0831 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-04-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Endodontology |
| spelling | doaj-art-a81f15d69d2341168c0167171e17c4f12025-07-04T06:14:24ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsEndodontology0970-72122543-08312025-04-0137221221610.4103/endo.endo_247_24Comparative evaluation of biodentine, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, cention-N, and bulk-fill flowable composite on fracture resistance in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro studyParthasarathi MondalUtpal HalderKaushik MistrySnigdho DasKallol Kumar SahaDebjyoti KarmakarAim: To assess the fracture resistance provided by four intraorifice barrier materials: biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fosses, France), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (GC Gold label 2 LC Light Cured Universal Restorative, GC Products, Japan), cention-N (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Lichtenstein), and bulk-fill flowable composite (BFFC) (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) in endodontically treated teeth. Methods: An in vitro comparative study, with a sample size of 50 freshly extracted mandibular second premolars. The teeth were randomly assigned into four experimental groups (n = 10 each) based on the type of intraorifice barrier applied: Group I (biodentine), Group II (RMGIC), Group III (cention-N), and Group IV (BFFC). A control group (n = 10) was included with no intraorifice barrier. Universal testing equipment (Instron, USA) was used to apply a compressive load to each specimen to evaluate its fracture resistance. Results: Group III exhibited the highest fracture resistance (906.27 ± 51.91 N), followed by Group IV (818.05 ± 57.93 N), Group I (684.73 ± 14.70 N), Group II (613.83 ± 59.30 N), and the control group (237.80 ± 18.87 N). Considerable differences were identified among the groups (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Cention-N and BFFC provide superior fracture resistance compared to other tested materials.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/endo.endo_247_24biodentinebulk-fill flowable compositecention-nfracture resistanceintraorifice barrierresin-modified glass ionomer cement |
| spellingShingle | Parthasarathi Mondal Utpal Halder Kaushik Mistry Snigdho Das Kallol Kumar Saha Debjyoti Karmakar Comparative evaluation of biodentine, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, cention-N, and bulk-fill flowable composite on fracture resistance in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study Endodontology biodentine bulk-fill flowable composite cention-n fracture resistance intraorifice barrier resin-modified glass ionomer cement |
| title | Comparative evaluation of biodentine, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, cention-N, and bulk-fill flowable composite on fracture resistance in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study |
| title_full | Comparative evaluation of biodentine, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, cention-N, and bulk-fill flowable composite on fracture resistance in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study |
| title_fullStr | Comparative evaluation of biodentine, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, cention-N, and bulk-fill flowable composite on fracture resistance in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative evaluation of biodentine, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, cention-N, and bulk-fill flowable composite on fracture resistance in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study |
| title_short | Comparative evaluation of biodentine, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, cention-N, and bulk-fill flowable composite on fracture resistance in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study |
| title_sort | comparative evaluation of biodentine resin modified glass ionomer cement cention n and bulk fill flowable composite on fracture resistance in endodontically treated teeth an in vitro study |
| topic | biodentine bulk-fill flowable composite cention-n fracture resistance intraorifice barrier resin-modified glass ionomer cement |
| url | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/endo.endo_247_24 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT parthasarathimondal comparativeevaluationofbiodentineresinmodifiedglassionomercementcentionnandbulkfillflowablecompositeonfractureresistanceinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy AT utpalhalder comparativeevaluationofbiodentineresinmodifiedglassionomercementcentionnandbulkfillflowablecompositeonfractureresistanceinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy AT kaushikmistry comparativeevaluationofbiodentineresinmodifiedglassionomercementcentionnandbulkfillflowablecompositeonfractureresistanceinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy AT snigdhodas comparativeevaluationofbiodentineresinmodifiedglassionomercementcentionnandbulkfillflowablecompositeonfractureresistanceinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy AT kallolkumarsaha comparativeevaluationofbiodentineresinmodifiedglassionomercementcentionnandbulkfillflowablecompositeonfractureresistanceinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy AT debjyotikarmakar comparativeevaluationofbiodentineresinmodifiedglassionomercementcentionnandbulkfillflowablecompositeonfractureresistanceinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy |