World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2019 ) > List of Articles


In Vitro Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Biodentine Pulpotomized Primary Molars Restored with Different Dental Materials

Yasamin Ghahramani, Dordaneh Ghaffaripour, Najmeh Mohammadi

Keywords : Composite resins, Dental amalgam, Fracture strength, Pulpotomy, Tricalcium silicate cement

Citation Information : Ghahramani Y, Ghaffaripour D, Mohammadi N. In Vitro Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Biodentine Pulpotomized Primary Molars Restored with Different Dental Materials. World J Dent 2019; 10 (4):301-305.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1655

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: Biodentine is a biocompatible, bioactive material with dentin regeneration potential that is known as the future material of choice in primary tooth pulp therapy. Biodentine (BD) is also designed as a dentine substitute in direct posterior restorations. So, the aim of this study is to evaluate the fracture resistance of BD pulpotomized primary molars, restored with different restorative techniques. Materials and methods: A total of 36 extracted primary second molar teeth were selected. Standardized class I access cavity preparation was done and then the teeth were randomly divided into three experimental groups of 12 in each. Group I (n = 12): BD and glass ionomer as liners with composite resin as restoration, group II (n = 12): BD as both liner and restoration; and group III (n = 12): BD and glass ionomer as liners with amalgam as restoration. After water storage and thermocycling, static fracture resistance was tested. Data (in Newtons) were analyzed using one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Results: Statistically significant difference was observed among groups of the study (p value = 0.000). Composite group showed the maximum fracture resistance and amalgam group exhibited the least (2371.67 N vs 1912.17 N). Application of composite and BD respectively led to higher numbers of restorable fractures (75%). Conclusion: In pulpotomized primary molars using biodentine, composite restoration shows the best fracture resistance followed by BD and amalgam restorations. Clinical significance: In order to improve the outcome of endodontic treatment in primary molars, biodentine can be used successfully as both pulpotomy and restorative material to achieve less time-consuming treatment in children.

PDF Share
  1. Jepsen S, Albers H-K, Fleiner B, et al. Recombinant human osteogenic protein-1 induces dentin formation: an experimental study in miniature swine. J Endod 1997;23(6):378–382. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80187-2.
  2. Erdem AP, Guven Y, Balli B, et al. Success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and formocresol pulpotomies: a 24-month study. Pediatr Dent 2011;33(2):165–170.
  3. El Meligy OA, Allazzam S, Alamoudi NM. Comparison between biodentine and formocresol for pulpotomy of primary teeth: A randomized clinical trial. Quintessence Int 2016;47(7):571–580. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a36095.
  4. Nakashima M, Akamine A. The application of tissue engineering to regeneration of pulp and dentin in endodontics. J Endod 2005;31(10):711–718. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000164138.49923.e5.
  5. Sushynski JM, Zealand CM, Botero TM, et al. Comparison of gray mineral trioxide aggregate and diluted formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a 6-to 24-month observation. Pediatr Dent 2012;34(5):120–128.
  6. Peng L, Ye L, Tan H, et al. Evaluation of the formocresol vs mineral trioxide aggregate primary molar pulpotomy: a meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102(6):e40–e44. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.05.017.
  7. Dawood AE, Parashos P, Wong RH, et al. Calcium silicate-based cements: composition, properties, and clinical applications. J Investig Clin Dent 2017;8(2):e12195. DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12195.
  8. Guven Y, Tuna EB, Dincol ME, et al. Long-term fracture resistance of simulated immature teeth filled with various calcium silicate-based materials. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:2863817. DOI: 10.1155/2016/2863817.
  9. De Rossi A, Silva LAB, Gatón-Hernández P, et al. Comparison of pulpal responses to pulpotomy and pulp capping with biodentine and mineral trioxide aggregate in dogs. J Endod 2014;40(9):1362–1369. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.006.
  10. Nowicka A, Lipski M, Parafiniuk M, et al. Response of human dental pulp capped with biodentine and mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 2013;39(6):743–747. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.01.005.
  11. Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE. Fracture resistance of simulated immature teeth filled with Biodentine and white mineral trioxide aggregate–an in vitro study. Dent Traumatol 2016;32(2):116–120. DOI: 10.1111/edt.12224.
  12. Cantekin K, Avci S. Evaluation of shear bond strength of two resin-based composites and glass ionomer cement to pure tricalcium silicate-based cement (Biodentine®). J Appl Oral Sci 2014;22:302–306. DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720130660.
  13. Holan G, Fuks A, Ketlz N. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalgam. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(3):212–216.
  14. Mohammad N, Pattanaik S, Chennupati S, et al. Comparison of the Fracture Resistance of Pulpotomized Primary Molars Restored with Various Tooth Bonded Restorative Material: An In Vitro Study. J Int Oral Health 2016;8(2):227–231.
  15. Davina A. A conservative approach to the pulpotomy in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998;22(2):103–105.
  16. Hürmüzlü F, Kiremitci A, Serper A, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with ormocer and packable composite. J Endod 2003;29(12):838–840. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200312000-00014.
  17. Passi S, Pandit I, Srivastava N, et al. A comparative evaluation of the fracture strength of pulpotomized primary molars restored with various restorative materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2007;31(3):164–166. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.31.3.dq1w71t160134697.
  18. Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, et al. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent 2005;18(3):198–211.
  19. Varpio M. Proximoclusal composite restorations in primary molars: a six-year follow-up. ASDC J Dent Child 1985;52(6):435–440.
  20. Ausiello P, De AG, Rengo S, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 1997;10(5): 237–241.
  21. Nasim I, Jain S, Soni S, et al. Bioceramics in Operative Dentistry and Endodontics. Int J Med Oral Res 2016;1(2):1–8.
  22. Raskin A, Eschrich G, Dejou J, et al. In vitro microleakage of Biodentine as a dentin substitute compared to Fuji II LC in cervical lining restorations. J Adhes Dent 2012 Dec;14(6):535–542.
  23. Koubi G, Colon P, Franquin J-C, et al. Clinical evaluation of the performance and safety of a new dentine substitute, Biodentine, in the restoration of posterior teeth—a prospective study. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(1):243–249. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0701-9.
  24. Rajasekharan S, Martens L, Cauwels R, et al. Biodentine™ material characteristics and clinical applications: a review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2014;15(3):147–158. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-014-0114-3.
  25. Malkondu Ö, Kazandağ MK, Kazazoğlu E. A review on biodentine, a contemporary dentine replacement and repair material. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:160951. DOI: 10.1155/2014/160951.
  26. Shafiei F, Doozandeh M, Ghaffaripour D. Effect of Different Liners on Fracture Resistance of Premolars Restored with Conventional and Short Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resins. J Prosthodont Res 2019;28:e304–e309. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12743.
  27. Shayegan A, Jurysta C, Atash R, et al. Biodentine used as a pulp-capping agent in primary pig teeth. Pediatr Dent 2012;34(7): 202E–208E.
  28. Chen JW, Jorden M. Materials for primary tooth pulp treatment: the present and the future. Endod Topics 2010;23(1):41–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2012.00289.x.
  29. Priyalakshmi S, Ranjan M. Review on Biodentine-a bioactive dentin substitute. J Dent Med Sci 2014;13(1):51–57.
  30. Guelmann M, Bookmyer KL, Villalta P, et al. Microleakage of restorative techniques for pulpotomized primary molars. J Dent Child 2004;71(3):209–211.
  31. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Pintado MR, et al. Residual shrinkage stress distributions in molars after composite restoration. Dent Mater 2004;20(6):554–564. DOI: 10.1016/
  32. Camilleri J. Staining potential of Neo MTA Plus, MTA Plus, and Biodentine used for pulpotomy procedures. J Endod 2015;41(7): 1139–1145. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.02.032.
  33. Lucas CdPTP, Viapiana, R, Bosso-Martelo, R, et al. Physicochemical properties and dentin bond strength of a tricalcium silicate-based retrograde material. Braz Dent J 2017;28(1):51–56. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201701135.
  34. Subash D, Shoba K, Aman S, et al. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with Biodentine, Resin Modified GIC and Hybrid Composite Resin as a Core Material. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11(9):ZC68–ZC70. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/28263.10625.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.