+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Comparison of Intracanal EndoSequence Root Repair Material and ProRoot MTA to Induce pH Changes in Simulated Root Resorption Defects over 4 Weeks in Matched Pairs of Human Teeth

      , ,
      Journal of Endodontics
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Intracanal mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) may provide an alternative to calcium hydroxide in the treatment of external inflammatory root resorption. This in vitro study using human matched pairs of teeth compared white ProRoot MTA (WMTA; (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) and an alternative material with purportedly improved handling properties, EndoSequence Root Repair Material (ES; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA), by measuring pH in simulated root surface resorptive defects after intracanal placement. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between WMTA and ES. Bilaterally matched pairs (n = 24) of extracted, human, single-rooted teeth were instrumented to apical size 50/.06, and root surface cavities were prepared at 5 mm and 2 mm from the apex. Root canals of experimental matched pairs (n = 20) were filled with WMTA or ES; control pairs (n = 4) were filled with calcium hydroxide (positive control [POS]) or saline (negative control [NEG]). Teeth were sealed coronally and apically and immersed in saline. The pH in root surface cavities was measured at 20 minutes, 3 hours, 24 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, and 4 weeks. The pH at 5 mm when compared with the 2-mm level was significantly higher for the WMTA, ES, and POS groups (P < .05, paired t tests); therefore, each level was analyzed separately. At both the 2-mm and 5-mm levels, significant pH changes occurred over time in the WMTA, ES (both P < .0001, repeated-measures analysis of variance), and POS (P < .0001, Friedman test) groups and not in the NEG group (mean pH = 7.32 ± 0.04, P > .05). There were no differences between WMTA and ES at 20 minutes and 3 hours at both levels or at 24 hours at 5mm. The pH of WMTA was higher than ES by 24 hours at the 2-mm level (8.79 vs 8.56, P < .05, paired t test) and after 1 week at the 5-mm level (8.91 vs 8.05, P < .0001) and was thereafter always significantly higher in WMTA compared with ES (P < .0001). The null hypothesis was rejected. In matched pairs of teeth, intracanal placement of WMTA compared with ES resulted in a higher pH in simulated root resorption defects that was time and root level dependent. Copyright © 2011 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal of Endodontics
          Journal of Endodontics
          Elsevier BV
          April 2011
          April 2011
          : 37
          : 4
          : 502-506
          © 2011



          Comment on this article