|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the gap volume between dentin and root-end filling materials.Four root-end filling materials were compared in the present study: ProRoot MTA (PRM; Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), MTA Angelus (MAG; Angelus, Londrina, Brazil), EndoCem MTA (ECM; Maruchi, Wonju, Korea), and RetroMTA (RTM; BioMTA, Seoul, Korea). Forty-eight single-rooted, extracted human teeth were instrumented with nickel-titanium instruments and oburated with gutta-percha. The apical 3 mm of the root tip was resected, and root-end preparation was performed with a diamond bur. The root-end cavity was filled with the experimental filling materials for the 4 designated groups (n = 10). Then, the samples were scanned with micro–computed tomographic (micro-CT) imaging. Three-dimensional images of the samples were reconstructed, and the volume of the gap between the tooth surface (dentinal wall) and the root-end filling materials was measured. The percentage volume of the gap between the tooth structure and the root-end filling material (VG%) was calculated. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests at a significance level of 95%.The median VG% values for the PRM, MAG, ECM, and RTM groups were 0.00472, 0.00134, 0.00014, and 0.00071, respectively. The ProRoot MTA group showed the greatest gap volume percentage among the experimental groups with a significant statistical difference (P < .05).From the micro-CT analysis, ProRoot MTA had a greater gap volume percentage than other root-end filling materials.The gap volume between the dentin and the root-end filling materials was compared.Four brands of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (ie, ProRoot MTA, MTA Angelus, EndoCem MTA, and RetroMTA) were compared.Using micro–computed tomographic imaging, the volume of the gap was measured using 3-dimensional images.Root-end filling materials have a different range of gap volume between the retrofilling materials and the surrounding dentin.