Compressive strength, surface roughness, and surface microhardness of principle tricalcium silicate-based endodontic cements after universal adhesive application

OLCAY K., GÜNEŞER M. B., Dincer A., UYAN H. M.

Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, vol.25, no.3, pp.231-238, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 25 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_1287_21
  • Journal Name: Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Page Numbers: pp.231-238
  • Keywords: Biodentine, compressive strength, mineral trioxide aggregate, regenerative endodontics, surface microhardness, surface roughness, tricalcium silicate-based cement
  • Istanbul Medipol University Affiliated: Yes


Aims and Background: It was aimed to evaluate compressive strength (CS), surface roughness, and microhardness of mineral trioxide aggregate (ProRoot MTA) and Biodentine (BD) after adhesive application. Materials and Methods: Tests was carried out according to international ISO standard. ProRoot MTA and BD were prepared in Teflon molds according to manufacturer's instructions: N = 210 for CS; n = 210 for microhardness. Samples were incubated for 7 days at 37°C in 100% humidity. Surfaces were smoothed with up to 2000 grits of silicon-carbide sandpaper on abrasive device at 150 rpm, randomly divided into seven groups (n = 15). Clearfil Universal Bond, All Bond Universal, and Single Bond Universal (SBU) were applied in both total-etch and self-etch (SE) modes. Adhesives were applied according to manufacturers' recommendations (no adhesive used in control). CS was performed at speed of 1 mm/min, microhardness at 100 gr for 15 s. The surface roughness of the samples was analyzed with atomic force microscopy. Two-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey tests were used for the evaluation of the data. Results: Man CS and microhardness values between ProRoot MTA and BD were as follows: 24.9 N, 72.6 HV; 59.8 N, 59.0 HV, respectively. In CS, BD was higher than ProRoot MTA (P < 0.05). In other comparisons except for SBU SE group (P < 0.05), BD and ProRoot MTA showed similar results (P > 0.05). However, ProRoot MTA was found higher than BD regarding microhardness (P < 0.05). As a result of the adhesive application in both BD and ProRoot MTA groups, a decrease in surface roughness was observed compared to the control group. Conclusion: BD exhibited better results than ProRoot MTA regarding CS. However, ProRoot MTA was found to be more successful than BD in terms of microhardness. BD and ProRoot MTA showed similar physical properties in terms of surface roughness. To improve regenerative procedures, besides the selection of bioceramic cements, the interaction between cements and materials applied during coronal restoration should be considered.