Microleakage of temporary restorations in complex endodontic access preparations

Anderson, Ronald W.; Powell, Billy J.; Pashley, David H.

doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(89)80194-3

Cited by 30 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…11,12 Spacer is a resin-based light-curing temporary filling material similar to Fermit (Vivadent, Saint-Jorioz, France), TERM (Dentsply-Caulk), or Clip (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany), which has shown good sealing ability in previous studies. 2,3,7 The results of our study indicate that the efficacy of Spacer sealing of marginal leakage is comparable to that of Caviton. Anderson et al showed that TERM provided excellent seals and was superior to Cavit and IRM for restoring Class II-type endodontic access preparation.…”

Section: (A) (B) (C) (D)supporting

confidence: 54%

“…Anderson et al showed that TERM provided excellent seals and was superior to Cavit and IRM for restoring Class II-type endodontic access preparation. 7 Teplitsky and Meimaries reported that the dye did not penetrate TERM. 13 Cho et al also reported that the microleakage of Spacer and Caviton was similar, but there was no correlation between polymerization shrinkage or hygroscopic expansion and microleakage.…”

Section: (A) (B) (C) (D)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Materials that provided appropriate sealing in simple preparations might be unacceptable in complex access preparations such as Class II-type that involved both the access preparation and multisurface cavity preparations. 7 In this study, glucose was selected as the tracer because of its small molecular size (MW = 180 Da) and because it is a nutrient for bacteria. If glucose could enter the canal from the oral cavity, bacteria that might survive root canal preparation could multiply and potentially lead to periapical inflammation.…”

Section: (A) (B) (C) (D)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, materials that provide adequate seals for access preparations in teeth with intact surrounding tooth structure may not be appropriate for use in teeth with Class II-type access preparations. 7 The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the microleakage of several materials used as temporary restorative materials in teeth with Class II-type endodontic access preparations by using a glucose penetration model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Coronal microleakage of four temporary restorative materials in Class II-type endodontic access preparations

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of 4 temporary materials in teeth with Class II-type endodontic access preparations by using a glucose penetration model. Materials and Methods: Glucose reaction test was performed to rule out the presence of any reaction between glucose and temporary material. Class II-type endodontic access preparations were made in extracted human premolars with a single root (n = 10). Each experimental group was restored with Caviton (GC), Spacer (Vericom), IRM (Dentsply-Caulk), or Fuji II(GC). Microleakage of four materials used as temporary restorative materials was evaluated by using a glucose penetration model. Data were analyzed by the one-way analysis of variance followed by a multiplecomparison Tukey test. The interface between materials and tooth were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Results: There was no significant reaction between glucose and temporary materials used in this study. Microleakage was significantly lower for Caviton and Spacer than for Fuji II and IRM. SEM observation showed more intimate adaptation of tooth-restoration interfaces in Caviton and Spacer than in IRM and Fuji II. Conclusions: Compared to IRM and Fuji II, Caviton and Spacer can be considered better temporary sealing materials in Class II-type endodontic access cavities. (Restor Dent Endod 2012;37(1):29-33)

show abstract

Section: (A) (B) (C) (D)supporting

confidence: 54%

Section: (A) (B) (C) (D)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (A) (B) (C) (D)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Coronal microleakage of four temporary restorative materials in Class II-type endodontic access preparations

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous methods have been described to determine the sealing ability of endodontic temporary restorative materials. Beside dye penetration tests, autoradiography 3) , electrochemical methods 4) , fluid filtration techniques 5) , and bacterial penetration tests 6) have been applied to determine microleakage. Among these methods, dye penetration tests are the most popular method for studying microleakage because they are easy to conduct.…”

Section: ⅰ Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microleakage of endodontic temporary restorative materials under dynamic loading

Jung

Young-Sin

Lee

et al. 2008

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to compare the sealing abilities of four endodontic temporary restorative materials using a methylene blue dye penetration test under dynamic loading. Standardized access cavities were prepared in forty-four intact human permanent molar teeth, and the cavities were restored with Caviton, MD-Temp, IRM, or ZOE. After thermocycling, an intermittent load of 98 N at 1 Hz was applied for 1,000 cycles to the long axis of the functional cusp of each of the teeth, which were immersed in a 1% methylene blue solution. The teeth were split in half, and the linear depth of dye penetration was evaluated according to the criteria. The results were analyzed using one-way ANOVA (p = 0.05) and Duncan' s multiple range test. The results demonstrated that Caviton and MD-Temp showed significantly lower microleakage than IRM and ZOE. It was concluded that Caviton and MD-Temp exhibited better sealing ability than IRM and ZOE under dynamic loading. [J Kor Acad Cons Dent 33(3):198-203, 2008]

show abstract

Bacterial microleakage of Cavit, IRM, and TERM

Deveaux¹,

Hildelbert²,

Neut³

et al. 1992

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microleakage of temporary restorations in complex endodontic access preparations

Cited by 30 publications

References 16 publications

Coronal microleakage of four temporary restorative materials in Class II-type endodontic access preparations

Coronal microleakage of four temporary restorative materials in Class II-type endodontic access preparations

Microleakage of endodontic temporary restorative materials under dynamic loading

Bacterial microleakage of Cavit, IRM, and TERM

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About