Fracture Resistance of Molars With Simulated Strip Perforation Repaired With Different Calcium Silicate-Based Cements

Background and aims A root perforation is a connection between the root canal system and the external supportive tissues. Strip perforation (SP), occurring within root canals in a strip, can worsen the prognosis of a treated tooth, reduce its mechanical resistance, and impair the tooth structure. One of the suggested methods to treat SP is to seal it with a bio-material such as calcium silicate cement. Therefore, this in vitro study aimed to assess the molar structure impairment due to SP, which requires studying the fracture resistance, and the ability of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), bioceramic, and calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) to repair this perforation. Materials and methods Seventy-five molars were instrumented to size #25 and taper 4%, irrigated with sodium hypochlorite and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), dried, and then divided randomly into five groups (G1-G5): in G1, root canals were filled with gutta-percha and sealer (negative control sample), whereas the rest of the groups (G2-G5) had a manual simulated SP made with Gates Glidden drill at the mesial root of the extracted molar, and filled with gutta-percha and sealer up to their perforation area; in G2, SP was filled with gutta-percha and sealer (positive control sample); G3 used MTA to repair the SP; G4 used bioceramic putty; and G5 used CEM. Fracture resistance tests of the molars were conducted in the crown-apical direction using a universal testing machine. One-way ANOVA test and Bonferroni test were used to study the significance of the differences in the mean values of the tooth fracture resistance, where statistical significance was set at 0.05. Results The ANOVA test showed that there were statistically significant differences between the fracture resistance (in newtons) values among groups (p = 0.000). The Bonferroni test showed that G2 had a smaller fracture resistance mean than the other four study groups (656.53 N; p = 0.000), and that of G5 was smaller than G1, G3, and G4 (794.40 N, 1083.73 N, 1025.20 N, and 1034.20 N, respectively; p = 0.000 in each pairwise comparison). Conclusion SP reduced the fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars. SP restored using MTA and bioceramic putty was better than that treated with CEM and similar to molars without SP. Moreover, MTA and bioceramic putty enhanced the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth to levels similar to molars without SP.