Publication:
Surface Microhardness and Roughness Properties of Biodentine Following Treatment with Various Endodontic Irrigants

dc.contributor.authorDemir, Pervin
dc.contributor.authorOzmen, Bilal
dc.contributor.authorErsahan, Seyda
dc.contributor.authorYildirim, Ceren
dc.contributor.authorAkgün, Özlem Martı
dc.contributor.authorBaşak, Feridun
dc.contributor.authorTekelı, Süleyman
dc.date.accessioned2025-12-11T00:58:13Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-tempAnkara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi,Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi,İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi,Tanımlanmamış Kurum,Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi,Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi,Gazi Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractAim:Endodontic irrigants may be used during a second-visit treatment or retreatment of root canals with perforations requiring repair biomaterials. After a final flushing with a chemical irrigant, some solution may remain in the root canal space, which can affect the surface of the biomaterial, altering its properties and roughness.The present study aimed to evaluatethe effect of various irrigating solutions on surface microhardness and roughness of Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fosses, France). Materials and Methods:Fifty Biodentine specimens were prepared and randomly divided into five groups, with 10 samples in each group. The specimens were then stored in different solutions for 5 min: distilled water (control), 5.25%sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) solution, 2% chlorhexidine (CHX), or ozonated water. Surface microhardness (Vickers hardness number [VHN]) and surface roughness were evaluated using 2-D profilometry. The data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests. The significance level was set at P < 0.05. Results:The VHN of specimens exposed to NaOCl and CHX was significantly lower than the VHN of specimens exposed to distilled water and EDTA (p < 0.001, p = 0.003, p = 0.001, and p = 0.006, respectively). There was no so significant difference in the mean VHN of the EDTA-treated specimens versus that of the control samples (p = 0.999). Regarding the surface roughness of Biodentine, there were no significant differences between irrigation solutions (2 = 4.243; p = 0.374). Conclusions:Exposure to all the irrigation solutions, except EDTA and ozonated water had an adverse effect on surface microhardness of Biodentine, whereas none of the irrigation solutions significantly changed surface roughness. Therefore, in clinical situations, such as perforation repair with Biodentine, use of EDTA and ozonated water may be preferred.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.17567/ataunidfd.658069
dc.identifier.endpage246en_US
dc.identifier.issn1300-9044
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage242en_US
dc.identifier.trdizinid375569
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.658069
dc.identifier.urihttps://search.trdizin.gov.tr/en/yayin/detay/375569/surface-microhardness-and-roughness-properties-of-biodentine-following-treatment-with-various-endodontic-irrigants
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/40485
dc.identifier.volume30en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAtatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisien_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Ulusal Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectDiş Hekimliğien_US
dc.titleSurface Microhardness and Roughness Properties of Biodentine Following Treatment with Various Endodontic Irrigantsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files