PofoliaShared via Pofolia

BMC Oral Health· 2026Q1

Sealing ability and marginal adaptation of NeoMTA and Endoseal MTA for strip perforation repair in mandibular first molars: an in vitro micro-computed tomography study

Yasamin Tajdini, Maryam Peighoun, Farzaneh Ghorbani, Nazanin Salmani et al.

Short summary

NeoMTA and Endoseal MTA demonstrated comparable sealing ability and marginal adaptation when used to repair strip perforations in mandibular molars, as assessed by micro-CT analysis.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • NeoMTA and Endoseal MTA were compared for sealing strip perforations in mandibular first molars using micro-CT.
  • Mean total defect percentages were 14.66% ± 10.77% for NeoMTA and 9.28% ± 7.68% for Endoseal MTA.
  • No statistically significant differences were found between NeoMTA and Endoseal MTA in total defects, marginal gaps, or internal voids.
  • All eight repair-related outcomes remained nonsignificant after statistical adjustment.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Strip perforation is a challenging endodontic complication that may compromise tooth prognosis. Calcium silicate–based materials are widely used for perforation repair; however, evidence comparing contemporary bioceramic materials in strip perforation defects remains limited. This study aimed to compare the sealing ability and marginal adaptation of NeoMTA and Endoseal MTA using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Thirty-two extracted human mandibular first molars were randomly allocated to NeoMTA ( n = 16) or Endoseal MTA ( n = 16). Standardized strip perforations were created in the danger zone of the mesial roots and repaired using group-specific procedures. Specimens underwent high-resolution micro-CT analysis. The primary outcome was total defects percentage, defined as the combined volume of marginal gaps, lateral interfacial gaps, and internal voids relative to total perforation volume. Additional measures included gap-, void-, and adaptation-related parameters. Intergroup comparisons were performed using independent-samples t-tests or Mann–Whitney U tests (α = 0.05), with Holm–Bonferroni adjustment across the eight repair-related outcomes. Baseline perforation volumes did not differ significantly between groups ( P = 0.755). Mean total defects percentages were 14.66% ± 10.77% for NeoMTA and 9.28% ± 7.68% for Endoseal MTA, with no significant difference between groups ( P = 0.196). No significant intergroup differences were observed for any secondary or exploratory outcome ( P > 0.05). All eight repair-related outcomes also remained nonsignificant after Holm–Bonferroni adjustment (adjusted P = 1.000 for each). Effect size analysis demonstrated only negligible-to-small differences between materials. NeoMTA and Endoseal MTA demonstrated no statistically significant differences in micro-CT measures of defect burden and marginal adaptation in strip perforation repair. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, both materials exhibited similar micro-CT defect characteristics, and the null hypothesis of no between-group difference could not be rejected.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. BMC Oral Health, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Oral Surgery

Oral SurgeryDentistry