Comparing Bacterial Leakage of Three Intraorifice Barrier Sealing Materials against Enterococcus faecalis and Proteus vulgaris

Khanna, Seema; Rao, H Murali; Aga, Nausheen; Chandra, Padma

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3128

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, differences between materials were observed in several studies: One study demonstrated RMGIC to be significantly more effective than composite resin in delaying leakage 25 . Another study indicated that the seal of RMGIC orifice barriers was inferior compared to MTA, with a statistically significant difference in the mean number of days to observe leakage 25,31 . Two studies suggested that MTA sealed better compared to composite resin 25,31 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[34][35][36] A total of 33 different orifice barrier materials and products were used. Table 3 summarises material classes that were most frequently, including GIC, 12,21,24,32,35,36 RMGIC, 12,21,22,25,26,28,33,34 composite resin, 21,24,25,31,34,35 MTA, 25,26,28,31,33,36 and Cavit. 20,27,29 Other materials that were assessed in two or fewer studies include amalgam, 31,33 IRM, 20,27 compomer, 20,33 CEM cement, 31 dentine bonding agent, 30 polycarboxylate cement, 21 zinc phosphate cement, 32 zinc oxyphosphate cement 23 and n-butyl cyanoacrylate resin.…”

Section: Descriptive Analysis and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Amongst the included studies, different methodologies to assess microleakages were identified. Fifteen studies evaluated microleakage by turbidity of the bacterial growth medium, 12,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] and 3 studies evaluated microleakage in a fluid filtration model. [34][35][36] A total of 33 different orifice barrier materials and products were used.…”

Section: Descriptive Analysis and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…25 Another study indicated that the seal of RMGIC orifice barriers was inferior compared to MTA, with a statistically significant difference in the mean number of days to observe leakage. 25,31 Two studies suggested that MTA sealed better compared to composite resin. 25,31 Risk of bias assessment…”

Section: Materials Vs Positive Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…25,31 Two studies suggested that MTA sealed better compared to composite resin. 25,31 Risk of bias assessment…”

Section: Materials Vs Positive Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Orifice barriers to prevent coronal microleakage after root canal treatment: systematic review and meta‐analysis

Chen

Teoh

et al. 2023

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: This systematic review aimed to compare the efficiency of orifice barriers in preventing coronal microleakage in vitro. Methods: Articles published in English, German and Chinese were searched for studies describing microleakage assays for the bacterial penetration of root canal-treated teeth in vitro. The final sample included 18 articles for review and meta-analysis. Risk ratios and confidence intervals were determined for dichotomous variables. Ten publications using bacterial leakage models contributed to the meta-analysis. Results: The addition of orifice barriers to a root canal filling was overall effective, shown by risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) demonstrating reduced microleakage with glass ionomer cement (GIC) (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.26-0.53, P < 0.001), resin-modified GIC (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15-0.67, P = 0.01), composite resin (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.75, P < 0.001), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12-0.52, P < 0.001) and Cavit (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14-0.39, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between GIC, resin-modified GIC, composite resin and MTA orifice barriers. Conclusions: Placement of an orifice barrier over the root canal filling is effective in the prevention of coronal microleakage in vitro. Other parameters may also affect the effectiveness of orifice barriers, including thickness and duration of exposure to the oral environment.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Descriptive Analysis and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Descriptive Analysis and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Materials Vs Positive Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…25,31 Two studies suggested that MTA sealed better compared to composite resin. 25,31 Risk of bias assessment…”

Section: Materials Vs Positive Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Orifice barriers to prevent coronal microleakage after root canal treatment: systematic review and meta‐analysis

Chen

Teoh

et al. 2023

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of bacterial leakage and marginal adaptation of the bioceramics pulp dressing materials: an invitro study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the sealing ability and marginal adaptation of three calcium silicate-based cement (Biodentine, Pro root MTA, MTA Angelus) using a bacterial leakage model and scanning electron microscope (SEM). Methods Recently extracted lower first premolars were randomly categorized into three experimental groups (n = 15 samples), positive control (n = 5 samples), and negative control group (n = 5 sample). Samples from the experimental groups and positive control group were subject to cavity Class I occlusal preparation followed by modified coronal pulpotomy. Different types of bioceramic dressing material were placed in 3 mm thickness accordingly, group 1 (Biodentine), group 2 (MTA Angelus), and group 3 (ProRoot MTA). No dressing material was placed in the positive control group (group 4). All samples were placed in the incubator for 24 h at 37℃, 100% humidity, for the materials to be completely set. The final restoration was placed using the Z350 resin composite. A double layer of nail varnish was applied over all the sample surfaces except the occlusal site. Whereas the samples’ surfaces in the negative control, were completely covered. A 3 mm length was measured from the root apex of the samples from each group, before proceeding with the resection. The bacterial leakage test was performed using Enterococcus faecalis TCC 23,125, and a sample from each experimental group was randomly chosen for SEM. Data analysis was conducted under the One-way ANOVA test, completed by Tukey’s post hoc test. Results There is a significant difference in sealing ability and marginal adaptation between the groups. (p < 0.05). The study showed that Pro Root MTA had the superior sealing ability and marginal adaptation compared to Biodentine and MTA Angelus. Conclusion The ProRoot MTA as a coronal pulpotomy pulp dressing material, was found to have a better marginal adaptation and sealing ability compared to three other bioceramics materials. The material would be the better choice during clinical settings and procedures.

show abstract

Comparing Bacterial Leakage of Three Intraorifice Barrier Sealing Materials against Enterococcus faecalis and Proteus vulgaris

Cited by 2 publications

References 16 publications

Orifice barriers to prevent coronal microleakage after root canal treatment: systematic review and meta‐analysis

Orifice barriers to prevent coronal microleakage after root canal treatment: systematic review and meta‐analysis

Evaluation of bacterial leakage and marginal adaptation of the bioceramics pulp dressing materials: an invitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About