title: The comparison of MTA, Geristore® and Amalgam with or without Bioglass as a matrix in sealing the furcal perforations (in vitro study).
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The objective of this in vitro was to assess the sealing ability of MTA, Geristore®, and amalgam with and without Bioglass as a matrix used to repair furcation perforations in mandibular molars by using dye penetration.
  
  
  METHODS
  One hundred mandibular molars were randomly divided into six experimental groups. Five teeth with perforation were used as positive control while five teeth without perforation were used as negative control group. Furcal perforations were made in the teeth. Perforations were repaired with amalgam in group 1, amalgam and Bioglass in group 2, MTA in group 3, MTA and Bioglass in group 4, Geristore® in group 5, and Geristore® and Bioglass in group 6. All repairing materials were allowed to set for 72 h. Leakage at the repaired sites was then evaluated using dye penetration and clearing technique under stereomicroscope.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The perforations repaired with MTA and Geristore® leaked significantly less than amalgam (p = 0.000). Bioglass reduced sealing ability of MTA and Geristore® significantly (p = 0.000, p = 0.019), while reduced the sealing ability of amalgam insignificantly (p = 0.78).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  MTA and Geristore® have shown acceptable sealing ability in furcal perforation in comparison to amalgam while Bioglass as a matrix beneath them has reduced their sealing ability.
authors: Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Islamic Azad University (IAU), Tehran, Iran.
authors: Payman
authors: P
authors: Mehrvarzfar
authors: Afsaneh
authors: A
authors: Dahi-Taleghani
authors: Mohammad Ali
authors: MA
authors: Saghiri
authors: Kasra
authors: K
authors: Karamifar
authors: Behnam
authors: B
authors: Shababi
authors: Ali
authors: A
authors: Behnia
references: Dent Clin North Am. 1992 Apr;36(2):357-78
references: 1572504
references: J Endod. 2001 Jan;27(1):40-2
references: 11487162
references: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997 Feb;17(1):75-87
references: 10332255
references: J Endod. 2002 Jul;28(7):512-5
references: 12126378
references: Quintessence Int. 1998 Feb;29(2):115-8
references: 9643245
references: J Clin Periodontol. 2007 Jun;34(6):507-13
references: 17451415
references: J Conserv Dent. 2009 Jan;12(1):26-30
references: 20379437
references: J Clin Periodontol. 2007 Aug;34(8):709-15
references: 17635247
references: J Dent Child (Chic). 2008 May-Aug;75(2):188-91
references: 18647517
references: Int Dent J. 2005 Jun;55(3):133-41
references: 15997963
references: Sven Tandlak Tidskr. 1972 Sep;65(9):457-66
references: 4517207
references: J Endod. 2003 Sep;29(9):592-4
references: 14503834
references: J Endod. 2006 Oct;32(10):956-9
references: 16982272
references: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994 Sep;78(3):368-74
references: 7970600
references: J Endod. 2008 Sep;34(9):1130-3
references: 18718380
references: J Appl Oral Sci. 2009 May-Jun;17(3):220-3
references: 19466255
references: Periodontal Clin Investig. 1996 Spring;18(1):17-21
references: 9116459
references: Quintessence Int. 1995 May;26(5):351-8
references: 7568759
references: J Endod. 2004 Feb;30(2):80-3
references: 14977301
references: J Am Dent Assoc. 2000 Feb;131(2):196-201
references: 10680387
references: J Can Dent Assoc. 2008 Oct;74(8):729-33
references: 18845064
references: Odontol Tidskr. 1967 Jun;75(3):209-37
references: 5231587
references: Am J Dent. 1995 Oct;8(5):267-9
references: 8634165
references: Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1995 Jan-Feb;7(1 Suppl):1-4
references: 7670073
references: Int Endod J. 2006 Apr;39(4):293-8
references: 16584492
references: Int Endod J. 2002 Jan;35(1):22-9
references: 11853235
references: J Endod. 1995 Mar;21(3):109-12
references: 7561650