Journal of Dentistry

Fracture Resistance of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate- and Biodentine-Pulpotomized teeth with Different Restorative Techniques: An in vitro Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Hajar Fahadpour 1
Yasamin Ghahramani 2
Mohammadhossein Jahani 3
Hanie Poursoleyman 4
Mahshid Mohammadibassir 5

1 Oral and Dental Disease Research Center, Dept. of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

2 Dept. of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

3 Postgraduated Resident Dept. of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

4 Dentist, Shiraz, Iran.

5 Dept. of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.30476/dentjods.2025.105152.2573
Abstract
Background: Preserving the radicular pulp in traumatically or mechanically exposed teeth through coronal pulpotomy (CP) is an advantageous endodontic procedure.
Purpose: This study compared the fracture resistance (FR) of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine (BD) in pulpotomized maxillary premolars restored with different materials.
Materials and Method: Ninety extracted maxillary premolars were divided into 9 groups (n=10). Group 1 served as intact controls. For the other groups, after access cavity preparation, half of the teeth were pulpotomized with MTA, and the others with BD. Groups 2 (MTA/unrestored) and 3 (BD/unrestored) remained unrestored. Restorations were as follows: Groups 4 (MTA/GI+Am) and 5 (BD/GI+Am) were restored with glass ionomer and amalgam; groups 6 (MTA/RMGI+ conventional com) and 7 (BD/RMGI+conventional com) with resin-modified glass-ionomer and conventional composite resin; groups 8 (MTA/bulk-fill com) and 9 (BD/bulk-fill com) with bulk-fill composite. After 24 hours, the FR test was conducted. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and the Tukey test (p Value< 0.05).
Results: FR of control group was significantly higher than the all other groups (p> 0.05). There was no significant difference between two unrestored MTA and BD groups (2 and 3) (p= 0.62). Group 2 (MTA/unrestored) showed significantly lower FR compared to all composite restored groups (6-9) (p< 0.05), and comparable to amalgam restored groups (4 and 5). The higher FR of all the restored groups (4-9) compared to BD/unrestored group (group 3) was not significant p> 0.05). There was no significant difference between all the restored groups in terms of FR and fracture type rate (p.> 0.05).
Conclusion: Both composite resins increased the strength of MTA-pulpotomized premolars, but this was not the case for BD. FR of amalgam restorations did not significantly differ from both composite resin restorations. However, none of the tested restorations was capable to recover the fracture strength completely.

Keywords

Fracture Strength
MTA
Biodentine
Pulpotomy
Dental Restoration
  • Leong DJX, Yap AU. Vital pulp therapy in carious pulp–exposed permanent teeth: an umbrella review. Clin Oral Invest. 2021; 25: 6743-6756.
  • Ather A, Patel B, Gelfond JA, Ruparel NB. Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Re. 2022; 12: 19664.
  • Alqaderi HE, Al-Mutawa SA, Qudeimat MA. MTA pulpotomy as an alternative to root canal treatment in children's permanent teeth in a dental public health setting. J Dent. 2014; 42: 1390-1395.
  • Taha NA, Ahmad MB, Ghanim A. Assessment of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate pulpotomy in mature permanent teeth with carious exposures. Int Endod J. 2017; 50: 117-125.
  • Chaipattanawan N, Chompu-Inwai P, Manmontri C, Cherdsatirakul P, Nirunsittirat A, Phinyo P. Tooth Fracture and Associated Risk Factors in Permanent Molars Treated with Vital Pulp Therapy and Restored with Direct Resin Composites: A Retrospective Survival Analysis in Young Patients. European Endo J. 2023; 8: 37-46.
  • Kunert GG, Kunert IR, da*Costa*Filho LC, de*Figueiredo JAP. Permanent teeth pulpotomy survival analysis: retrospective follow-up. J Dent. 2015; 43: 1125-1131.
  • Duncan HF, El‐Karim I, Dummer PM, Whitworth J, Nagendrababu V. Factors that influence the outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth. Int Endo J. 2023; 56: 62-81.
  • Nowicka A, Lipski M, Parafiniuk M, Sporniak-Tutak K, Lichota D, Kosierkiewicz A, et al. Response of human dental pulp capped with biodentine and mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endo. 2013; 39: 743-747.
  • Kaur M, Singh H, Dhillon JS, Batra M, Saini M. MTA versus biodentine: review of literature with a comparative analysis. J Clin Diagnos Res (JCDR). 2017; 11: ZG01.
  • Abuelniel GM, Duggal MS, Kabel N. A comparison of MTA and Biodentine as medicaments for pulpotomy in traumatized anterior immature permanent teeth: a randomized clinical trial. Dent Traumatol. 2020; 36: 400-410.
  • Tan SY, Yu VSH, Lim KC, Tan BCK, Neo CLJ, Shen L, et al. Long-term pulpal and restorative outcomes of pulpotomy in mature permanent teeth. J Endo. 2020; 46: 383-390.
  • Simon S, Perard M, Zanini M, Smith A, Charpentier E, Djole S, et al. Should pulp chamber pulpotomy be seen as a permanent treatment? Some preliminary thoughts. Int Endo J. 2013; 46: 79-87.
  • Amend S, Boutsiouki C, Bekes K, Kloukos D, Gizani S, Lygidakis N, et al. Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated primary teeth: a systematic review. Euro Arch Paediatr Dent. 2022; 23: 761-776.
  • Abdelwahab DH, Kabil NS, Badran AS, Darwish D, Abd El Geleel OM. One-year radiographic and clinical performance of bioactive materials in primary molar pulpotomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Dent. 2024; 143: 104864.
  • Yasa B, Arslan H, Yasa E, Akcay M, Hatirli H. Effect of novel restorative materials and retention slots on fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2016; 74: 96-102.
  • Mondelli RFL, Ishikiriama SK, Oliveira Filho Od, Mondelli J. Fracture resistance of weakened teeth restored with condensable resin with and without cusp coverage. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009; 17: 161-165.
  • Dammaschke T, Nykiel K, Sagheri D, Schäfer E. Influence of coronal restorations on the fracture resistance of root canal‐treated premolar and molar teeth: A retrospective study. Australian Endo J. 2013; 39: 48-56.
  • Do T, Church B, Verissimo C, Hackmyer SP, Tantbirojn D, Simon JF, et al. Cuspal flexure, depth-of-cure, and bond integrity of bulk-fill composites. Pediatr Dent. 2014; 36: 468-473.
  • Ferracane JL. Resin composite- state of the art. Dent Mate. 2011; 27: 29-38.
  • Abouelleil H, Pradelle N, Villat C, Attik N, Colon P, Grosgogeat B. Comparison of mechanical properties of a new fiber reinforced composite and bulk filling composites. Rest Dent Endo. 2015; 40: 262-270.
  • Zarow M, Dominiak M, Szczeklik K, Hardan L, Bourgi R, Cuevas-Suarez CE, et al. Effect of composite core materials on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Polymers. 2021; 13: 2251.
  • Shafiei F, Saadat‏ Micromorphology and bond strength evaluation of adhesive interface of a self‐adhering flowable composite resin–dentin: Effect of surface treatment‏. Microscopy Research and Technique. 2016; 79: 403-407.
  • Shafiei F, Ghahramani Y, Farhadpour H, Asim N. Effect of restorative technique on the fracture strength and fracture mode of premolars after mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy. General Dent. 2021; 69: 46-51.
  • Fathi A, Ebadian B, Dezaki SN, Mardasi N, Mosharraf R, Isler S, et al. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses evaluating the success rate of prosthetic restorations on endodontically treated teeth. Int J Dent. 2022; 2022: 4748291.
  • Monga P, Sharma V, Kumar S. Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using different coronal restorative materials: An: in vitro: study. J Conserv Dent. 2009; 12: 154-159.
  • McCullock A, Smith B. In vitro studies of cusp reinforcement with adhesive restorative material. British Dent J. 1986; 161: 450-452.
  • Ghahramani Y, Shafiei F, Jowkar Z, Kazemian S. The effects of various restorative techniques on the fracture resistance of pulpotomized permanent premolars. Int J Dent. 2021; 2021: 5590911.
  • Ghajari MF, Ghasemi A, Moradi AY, Sanjari K. Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques. Dent Res J. 2020; 17: 412-416.
  • Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, Rafter M, Billy E. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosth Dent. 2003; 89: 360-367.
  • Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: a systematic review. Dent Mater. 2005; 21: 962-970.
  • Taha N, Maghaireh G, Ghannam A, Palamara J. Effect of bulk-fill base material on fracture strength of root-filled teeth restored with laminate resin composite restorations. J Dent. 2017; 63: 60-64.
  • Toz T, Tuncer S, Öztürk Bozkurt F, Kara Tuncer A, Gözükara Bağ H. The effect of bulk-fill flowable composites on the fracture resistance and cuspal deflection of endodontically treated premolars. J Adhesion Sci Techno. 2015; 29: 1581-1592.
  • Rosatto C, Bicalho A, Veríssimo C, Bragança G, Rodrigues M, Tantbirojn D, et al. Mechanical properties, shrink-age stress, cuspal strain and fracture resistance of molars restored with bulk-fill composites and incremental filling technique. J Dent. 2015; 43: 1519-1528.
  • Moorthy A, Hogg C, Dowling A, Grufferty B, Benetti AR, Fleming G. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent. 2012; 40: 500-505.
  • Rizzante FAP, Duque JA, Duarte MAH, Mondelli RFL, Mendonca G, Ishikiriama SK. Polymerization shrinkage, microhardness and depth of cure of bulk fill resin composites. Dent Mater J. 2019; 38: 403-410.
  • Correia TC, da Silva RB, Grangeiro MTV, de Souza HTN, de Morais Sousa LK, de Sousa Feitosa DA. Linear polymerization shrinkage of bulk fill resins. Revista da Faculdade de Odontologia-UPF. 2017;22(3).
  • Kumbaiah G, Hegde V, Ginjupalli K, Sulaya K, Jayaprakash K. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Various Core Buildup Materials on Endodontically Treated Teeth: An: In Vitro: Study. J Int Oral Health. 2022; 14: 597-602.
  • Hamdy TM. Polymerization shrinkage in contemporary resin-based dental composites: A Review Article. Egyptian J Chem. 2021; 64: 3087-3092.
  • Subash D, Shoba K, Aman S, Bharkavi SKI, Nimmi V, Abhilash R. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with biodentine, resin modified GIC and hybrid composite resin as a core material. J Clin Diagnos Res (JCDR). 2017; 11: ZC68.
  • Han L, Okiji T. Uptake of calcium and silicon released from calcium silicate–based endodontic materials into root canal dentine. Int Endo J. 2011; 44: 1081-1087.
  • Patri G, Lath H, Jena D, Agrawal P, Bajoria AA, Banka A. Effect of Irrigants on the Push-Out Bond Strength of Three Bioceramic Root Repair Materials: An In Vitro Comparative Analysis. J Int Oral Health. 2024; 16: 462-471.
  • EL‐Ma'aita AM, Qualtrough AJ, Watts DC. Resistance to vertical fracture of MTA‐filled roots. Dent Traumatol. 2014; 30: 36-42.
  • Topçuoğlu G, Topçuoğlu HS. Fracture resistance of primary molars after pulpotomy procedure using mineral trioxide aggregate or Biodentine. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023; 47: 133-137.
  • Aslan T, Esim E, Üstün Y, Özkan HD. Evaluation of stress distributions in mandibular molar teeth with different iatrogenic root perforations repaired with biodentine or mineral trioxide aggregate: a finite element analysis study. J Endo. 2021; 47: 631-640.
  • Van der Bilt A. Assessment of mastication with implications for oral rehabilitation: a review. J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38: 754-780.
Journal of Dentistry
Volume 27, Issue 2
Spring 2026
Pages 139-147

  • Receive Date 15 December 2024
  • Revise Date 17 May 2025
  • Accept Date 22 July 2025
  • First Publish Date 18 August 2025
  • Publish Date 01 June 2026

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Reviewers

Contact Us