Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of voxel size and different post-processing algorithms on the analysis of dental materials using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Materials and Methods: Root-end cavities were prepared in extracted maxillary premolars, filled with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), Biodentine, and Intermediate Restorative Material (IRM), and scanned using micro-CT. The volume and porosity of materials were evaluated and compared using voxel sizes of 5, 10, and 20 µm, as well as different software tools (post-processing algorithms). The CTAn or MeVisLab/Materialise 3-matic software package was used to perform volume and morphological analyses, and the CTAn or MeVisLab/Amira software was used to evaluate porosity. Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey test (p<0.05). Results: Using MeVisLab/Materialise 3-matic, a consistent tendency was observed for volume to increase at larger voxel sizes. CTAn showed higher volumes for MTA and IRM at 20 µm. Using CTAn, porosity values decreased as voxel size increased, with statistically significant differences for all materials. MeVisLab/Amira showed a difference for MTA and IRM at 5 µm, and for Biodentine at 20 µm. Significant differences in volume and porosity were observed in all software packages for Biodentine across all voxel sizes. Conclusion Some differences in volume and porosity were found according to voxel size, image-processing software, and the radiopacity of the material. Consistent protocols are needed for research evaluating dental materials.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the physicochemical properties, cytotoxicity and penetration into dentinal tubules of ChlorCid™ Surf (3% sodium hypochlorite [NaOCl] with surfactant) in comparison to ChlorCid™ (3% NaOCl without surfactant). Materials and Methods: The physicochemical properties evaluated were pH, surface tension, free available chlorine (FAC) and contact angle. Cytotoxicity was evaluated in L929 fibroblasts exposed to the solutions by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide and neutral red assays. Assessment of penetration into dentinal tubules was performed by staining single-rooted permanent human teeth with crystal violet (n = 9), which were irrigated with the solutions and analyzed in cervical, middle and apical segments. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post-test, 2-way ANOVA and Bonferroni's post-test or t-test (α = 0.05). Results: ChlorCid™ Surf and ChlorCid™ FAC values were close to those indicated by the manufacturer. ChlorCid™ Surf showed lower surface tension and contact angle on dentin, and higher pH than ChlorCid™ (p < 0.05). The penetration of ChlorCid™ Surf was higher in cervical and middle segments, compared with ChlorCid™ (p < 0.05). There was no difference in irrigant cytotoxicity (p > 0.05). Conclusions ChlorCid™ Surf showed lower surface tension, lower contact angle on root canal dentin, higher penetration into dentinal tubules and more alkaline pH, compared with ChlorCid™. However, both solutions showed similar cytotoxicity and FAC content.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the physicochemical properties, cytotoxicity and penetration into dentinal tubules of ChlorCid™ Surf (3% sodium hypochlorite [NaOCl] with surfactant) in comparison to ChlorCid™ (3% NaOCl without surfactant). Materials and Methods: The physicochemical properties evaluated were pH, surface tension, free available chlorine (FAC) and contact angle. Cytotoxicity was evaluated in L929 fibroblasts exposed to the solutions by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide and neutral red assays. Assessment of penetration into dentinal tubules was performed by staining single-rooted permanent human teeth with crystal violet (n = 9), which were irrigated with the solutions and analyzed in cervical, middle and apical segments. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post-test, 2-way ANOVA and Bonferroni's post-test or t-test (α = 0.05). Results: ChlorCid™ Surf and ChlorCid™ FAC values were close to those indicated by the manufacturer. ChlorCid™ Surf showed lower surface tension and contact angle on dentin, and higher pH than ChlorCid™ (p < 0.05). The penetration of ChlorCid™ Surf was higher in cervical and middle segments, compared with ChlorCid™ (p < 0.05). There was no difference in irrigant cytotoxicity (p > 0.05). Conclusions ChlorCid™ Surf showed lower surface tension, lower contact angle on root canal dentin, higher penetration into dentinal tubules and more alkaline pH, compared with ChlorCid™. However, both solutions showed similar cytotoxicity and FAC content.