Evaluation of pigmented intraorifice barriers in endodontically treated teeth

Wolcott, James; Hicks, M. Lamar; Himel, Van T.

doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(99)80313-6

Cited by 41 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We measured the levels of glucose penetration at 1, 7, 30 and 45 days, frequent time intervals for endodontic treatment or when permanent restoration is carried out after root canal treatment (10). Although previous research supports the effectiveness of intraorifice barriers, there is no consensus as to the protocol or material used as the coronal barrier after root canal treatment (6). Different depths have been tested, and the studied materials include Cavit™, IRM ® , TERM ® and Tetric ® EvoFlow (5,8).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Complete bacterial penetration has been demonstrated in vitro (3) and in vivo (4) through root canal filling in teeth without temporary restoration. According to the type of material used and exposure time to the oral cavity, all temporary materials leak to some extent (5)(6)(7)(8), and the degree to which different temporary filling materials are capable of establishing and maintaining a good coronal seal is often questioned (9). The use of a material to seal the orifice, in addition to temporary restoration after root canal filling, has been recommended as a supplementary layer of protection for the obturated canal (7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of a material to seal the orifice, in addition to temporary restoration after root canal filling, has been recommended as a supplementary layer of protection for the obturated canal (7). Different studies have shown that materials such as Cavit™, Composite, ProRoot™ MTA, IRM ® ; Super-Eba ® , etc., placed at a depth from 1 to 4 mm, are beneficial in preventing coronal microleakeage because they act like intraorifice barriers in root canal filling (4)(5)(6)(7)10). Recently, a model that effectively measures the leakage of glucose molecules has been proposed (11,12).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate Cavit™ G, ProRoot™ MTA and Tetric ® EvoFlow as intraorifice barriers to prevent coronal microleakage in root canal treatment. Study Design: Forty-two human single rooted teeth were divided randomly in three experimental groups of 10 specimens each and two control groups. The experimental groups were prepared with hand instrumentation and cold lateral condensed technique of the gutta-percha. Four millimetres of coronal gutta-percha were removed and replaced by one of the following filling materials: Cavit™ G, Tetric ® EvoFlow or ProRoot™ MTA. In the experimental groups, leakage was measured by the concentration of leaked glucose in the apical reservoir at 1, 7, 30, and 45 days, using the enzymatic glucose oxidase method. Data were analyzed by means of Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests at α=0.05. Results: The glucose penetration results of three experimental groups increased gradually over time. No significant differences were found among groups at 24 hours and 1 week. At thirty and forty-five days, Cavit™ and Tetric ® EvoFlow values were significantly different (p=0.007 and p=0.023, respectively). Conclusions: The sealing ability of the Cavit™ G, ProRoot™ MTA and Tetric ® EvoFlow used as intraorifice materials tends to be similar over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another microleakage study 41) using glucose penetration model showed that Cavit, Tetric, and ProRoot MTA attained similar leakage values during the testing period when used as intraorifice barriers. As described above, previous researches support the importance of intraorifice barriers, but there is no consensus as to the protocols or materials used as the coronal barrier after root canal treatment except the thickness of the intraorifice barrier, which is recommended to be 3 to 4 mm 40,42,43) . As all studies differ in methodologic designs and materials, this difference makes difficult to compare material's ability on preventing microleakage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<i>In vitro</i> microleakage of six different dental materials as intraorifice barriers in endodontically treated teeth

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the coronal sealing ability of six different dental materials: Three MTA-based cements and three established restorative materials by in vitro dye penetration method. For in vitro infiltration experiments, seventy extracted single-rooted human teeth were used. After crowns of teeth were reduced, root canals were prepared, and filled with gutta-percha cone. Teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups with 10 teeth per group. The orifice of each tooth was prepared to 3 mm depth and filled with the following materials: (I) ProRoot WMTA; (II) EndoCem Zr; (III) Angelus White; (IV) LuxaCore; (V) Fuji II LC; and (VI) Elite. After 5,000 cycles of thermocycling between 5°C and 55°C, dye penetration of each specimen was measured. The order of less dye infiltration of coronal filling materials was: ProRoot WMTA

show abstract

“…[23] Although previous research supports the effectiveness of intra-orifice barriers, there is no consensus as to the protocol or material used as the coronal barrier after root canal treatment. [19][20][21] Based on this premise this study was done to evaluate the effect of intraorifice depth in the sealing abililty of orifice filling materials using methylene blue as the dye tracer. Methylene blue was used in the present study because of its low molecular weight and penetrated deeply when compared to other dyes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Intraorifice Depth on the Sealing Ability of Inraorifice Sealing Agent – An in Vitro Study.

JacobOommen¹,

Shetty²,

Shetty³

2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of intraorifice depth on the sealing ability of intraorifice sealing agent using methylene blue as a dye tracer. Material And Method: Twenty extracted premolars were decoronated , cleaned and shaped and obturated with guttapercha points and following which guttapercha was removed from each group at varying depths of 1mm, 2mm and 3mm respectively and these empty canal space were then filled with light cure glass ionomer cement as intraorifice sealing agent and then the microleakage was measured in each group by assessing the amount of dye penetration using a stereomicroscope by using methylene blue as the dye tracer after the specimens were sectioned longitudinally.

show abstract

Evaluation of pigmented intraorifice barriers in endodontically treated teeth

Cited by 41 publications

References 15 publications

Intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth

Intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth

<i>In vitro</i> microleakage of six different dental materials as intraorifice barriers in endodontically treated teeth

Effect of Intraorifice Depth on the Sealing Ability of Inraorifice Sealing Agent – An in Vitro Study.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About