Time‐dependence of coronal seal of temporary materials used in endodontics

Madarati, Ahmad A.; Rekab, Mohammad Salem; Watts, David C.; Qualtrough, A. J. E.

doi:10.1111/j.1747-4477.2007.00079.x

Cited by 29 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In relation to the temporary filling coronary studies have shown that Coltosol was significantly better in preventing microleakage other temporary materials (2,9). However, the hygroscopic expansion of Coltosol in a cavity may lead to cusp deflection, infraction development and fracture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coronal microleakage of restorations with or without cervical barrier in root-filled teeth

Damman¹,

Grazziotin‐Soares²,

Farina³

et al. 2012

Rev. odonto ciênc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the ability sealing of glass ionomer and composite resin with or without 1-mm thickness of Coltosol on the root-canal filling material.Methods: Root-canal treatment was completed on 50-extracted human mandibular unirradicular. The teeth were divided into six groups: G1, positive control; G2, negative control; G3, glass ionomer (Vidrion R); G4, Coltosol + Vidrion R; G5, composite resin; and, G6, Coltosol + composite resin. For G1 and G2 five teeth each were used and for the other groups, ten teeth each. The teeth were thermocycled and evaluated for microleakage using methylene blue dye. Specimens were sectioned and measurements made to the maximum point of dye penetration. The mean dye penetration (%) for each group was compared by ANOVA and Tukey's test for post-hoc comparisons (α=0.05).Results: The means and standard deviations of microleakage were: G1, 96.56 (±2.31); G2, 0.00 (±0.00); G3, 68.76 (±24.63); G4, 24.42 (±8.33); G5, 20.06 (±9.35); and, G6, 12.86 (±6.08).Conclusion: It was concluded that none of the materials were able to prevent microleakage. Composite resin alone or combined with coltosol and glass ionomer associated with coltosol resulted in less microleakage than the glass ionomer used alone.Key words: Coronal microleakage; adhesive system; composite resin; temporary fillings ResumoObjetivos: Avaliar a capacidade de selamento do ionomero de vidro e resina composta, com ou sem 1 mm de coltosol, sobre o material obturador endodôntico.Métodos: O tratamento endodôntico foi realizado em 50 dentes humanos mandibulares unirradiculares. Os dentes foram divididos em 6 grupos: G1, controle positivo; G2, controle negativo; G3, ionômero de vidro (Vidrion R); G4, Coltosol + Vidrion R; G5, resina composta; e, G6, Coltosol + resina composta. Os dentes foram submetidos a termociclagem e a avaliação da microinfiltração usando azul de metileno. Os especimes foram seccionados e a quantidade maxima de penetração de corante avaliado. As medias e desvios-padrão de penetração do corante (em %) para cada grupo foram analisadas pelo teste ANOVA e pelo teste de multiplas comparações de Tukey's (α=0.05).Resultados: As medias e desvios-padrão de midroinfiltração foram: G1: 96,56 (±2,31); G2: 0,00 (±0,00); G3: 68,76 (±24,63); G4: 24,42 (±8,33); G5: 20,06 (±9,35); and, G6: 12,86 (±6,08).Conclusão: Pode-se concluir que nenhum material obturador preveniu completamente a microinfiltração. Resina composta utilizada isoladamente ou associada ao coltosol e o ionômero de vidro associado ao coltosol apresentaram menor microinfiltração do que o ionomero de vidro utilizado sozinho.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coronal microleakage of restorations with or without cervical barrier in root-filled teeth

Damman¹,

Grazziotin‐Soares²,

Farina³

et al. 2012

Rev. odonto ciênc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Use of glass ionomer cements as temporary restoration materials during endodontic treatment has been investigated in a number of studies with various results. 2,6 In this study, however, Fuji II showed marginal leakage as high as that observed in the positive controls. This has been attributed to its sensitivity to manipulation and polymerization shrinkage resulting in a potential avenue of microleakage.…”

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

confidence: 52%

“…2 Many temporary restorative materials have been studied to determine their ability to seal endodontic access preparations. [2][3][4][5][6] Most studies have examined the materials in simple access preparations within an intact tooth structure. In clinical practice, however, the use of these materials frequently involves the restoration of a multisurface cavity preparation necessitated by the removal of caries or defective restorations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…6 There is still lack of evidence in the literature regarding the effect of saliva on temporary restorations. 7 Hence, we evaluated the effect of saliva on the coronal leakage of temporary restorations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Coronal Leakage of Temporary Restorations in Root Canal-treated Teeth: An in vitro Study

Srivastava

Nagpal

Setya

et al. 2017

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Coronal leakage is one of the constant concerns in routine dental practice. It is one of the factors responsible for the failure of root canal therapy. Permanent restorations should be given as soon as possible after the completion of root canal therapy. If unavoidable, provisional restoration should be given in such a way that it maximally reduced the leakage of micro organisms and fluids from the external environment into the canal space. Hence, we evaluated the effect of saliva on the coronal leakage of temporary restorations. Materials and methods:Biomechanical preparation of the root canals of 204 fresh mandibular first premolar teeth was done using endodontic files with intermittent irrigation of sodium hypochlorite solution and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Alternate irrigation with normal saline was done periodi cally. After preparation, drying of the canals was done using paper points followed by sealing of the apical foramen. For the assessment of the microleakage, Siqueira et al apparatus and method was used. All the specimens were divided into four groups based on the provisional restorative material used. All the groups were further divided into three subgroups based on the presence and absence of intracanal medicaments. Verissimo et al's criteria were used to check the turbidity at 1, 2, 3, and 4week interval respectively. All the results were analyzed by

show abstract

Time‐dependence of coronal seal of temporary materials used in endodontics

Cited by 29 publications

References 27 publications

Coronal microleakage of restorations with or without cervical barrier in root-filled teeth

Coronal microleakage of restorations with or without cervical barrier in root-filled teeth

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

Assessment of Coronal Leakage of Temporary Restorations in Root Canal-treated Teeth: An in vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About