The Repair of Furcal Perforations in Different Diameters with Biodentine, MTA, and IRM Repair Materials: A Laboratory...

The aim of this study is to evaluate the microleakage of repair materials MTA, IRM, and Biodentine applied on furcal perforations with different diameters. One hundred and forty extracted human teeth were used in this study. The teeth were divided into 2 main groups (60 teeth in each) which were then divided into 3 subgroups (n = 20). The remaining 20 teeth were divided into 2 groups (10 in each) to serve as controls. The furcal areas of the teeth were perforated with #2 cylindrical burs in Group 1 whereas perforations were made using #4 cylindrical burs in Group 2. Each subgroup of both Groups 1 and 2 received ProRoot MTA (ProRoot, USA), Biodentine (Septodont), or IRM (Dentsply, USA) to repair the perforations. An experimental set-up was established to contaminate repaired perforations with E. Faecalis (ATCC29212). The turbidity of bacteria was observed on the 7th, 15th, 30th, and 45th days. The data was analysed by chi-square test (p > 0.05). The number of bacteria in the group perforated by bur #2 and closed by MTA was found to be lower than the other groups on the 7th day (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the bacterial counts of other groups on the 15th, 30th, and 45th days (p > 0.05). ProRoot MTA was found to be more successful in the prevention of bacterial leakage compared to IRM and Biodentine in smaller perforations during the 1st week.