Charland Trisha, Hartwell Gary R, Hirschberg Craig, Patel Reena
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07101-1709, USA.
J Endod. 2013 Aug;39(8):1071-2. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.04.041. Epub 2013 Jun 19.
The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of MTA (Dentsply Maillefer, Tulsa, OK) and EndoSequence Root Repair Material (ESRRM; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA) to set in the presence of human blood and minimal essential media.
A model was created using polymethyl methacrylate blocks each prepared with 10 standardized wells (2-mm diameter × 3-mm depth). Prepared ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Maillefer) and ESRRM were each placed in 6 separate blocks. The samples were distributed among the 4 different media (ie, blood, minimal essential media, blood and minimal essential media, and sterile saline as the control). Each block was submerged for 4, 5, 6, 8, 24, 36, and 48 hours in an incubator at 37°C with 100% humidity.
The results revealed that regardless of the type of media exposure, neither of the materials set at 4 or 6 hours. ESRRM was not set at 48 hours, whereas all of the MTA samples were set at 36 hours.
This outcome draws into question the proposed setting time given by each respective manufacturer. Furthermore, despite ESRRM being marketed as a direct competitor to MTA with superior handling properties, MTA consistently set at a faster rate under the conditions of this study.
本研究的目的是比较MTA(登士柏迈徕特,塔尔萨,俄克拉何马州)和EndoSequence根充修复材料(ESRRM;美国布拉塞尔,萨凡纳,佐治亚州)在人血和最低限度基本培养基存在下的凝固能力。
使用聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯块创建一个模型,每个块制备有10个标准化孔(直径2毫米×深度3毫米)。将制备好的ProRoot MTA(登士柏迈徕特)和ESRRM分别置于6个单独的块中。将样品分布在4种不同的培养基中(即血液、最低限度基本培养基、血液和最低限度基本培养基,以及无菌盐水作为对照)。每个块在37°C、湿度100%的培养箱中分别浸泡4、5、6、8、24、36和48小时。
结果显示,无论培养基暴露类型如何,两种材料在4或6小时时均未凝固。ESRRM在48小时时未凝固,而所有MTA样品在36小时时均已凝固。
这一结果对各制造商提出的凝固时间提出了质疑。此外,尽管ESRRM作为MTA的直接竞争对手进行销售,具有更好的操作性能,但在本研究条件下,MTA始终凝固得更快。