Restor Dent Endod.  2012 Mar;37(1):29-33. 10.5395/rde.2012.37.1.29.

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

• Yun SM
• Karanxha L
• Kim HJ
• Jung SH
• Park SJ
• Min KS

• KMID: 1995681
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2012.37.1.29

Abstract

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 multiple-comparison 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.

Keyword

Class II-type endodontic access preparation; Glucose penetration; Microleakage; Temporary restoration

MeSH Terms

Bicuspid
Calcium Sulfate
Dental Cements
Electrons
Glass Ionomer Cements
Glucose
Humans
Root Canal Filling Materials
Tooth
Vinyl Compounds
Zinc Oxide
Calcium Sulfate
Dental Cements
Glass Ionomer Cements
Glucose
Root Canal Filling Materials
Vinyl Compounds
Zinc Oxide

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 (a) Glucose leakage model; (b) Glucose reaction test. The temporary materials used in this study showed no significantly difference compared with control in optical density (p < 0.05).

• 

  Figure 2 Microleakage in Class II-type endodontic access preparations. Amounts of glucose penetrating the temporary materials and canal were represented the optical density (*p < 0.05). Asterisk means statistically significant difference.

• 

  Figure 3 Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) images (×100) on gingival margin of temporary restoration materials and cavity-wall interface (white arrows). (a) Caviton; (b) Spacer; (c) IRM; (d) Fuji II. T, tooth; CAV, Caviton; SPC, Spacer; GIC, Fuji II.

Reference

1. Noguera AP, McDonald NJ. Comparative in vitro coronal microleakage study of new endodontic restorative materials. J Endod. 1990. 16:523–527.

2. Ciftçi A, Vardarli DA, Sönmez IS. Coronal microleakage of four endodontic temporary restorative materials: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009. 108:e67–e70.

3. Deveaux E, Hildelbert P, Neut C, Romond C. Bacterial microleakage of Cavit, IRM, TERM, and Fermit: a 21-day in vitro study. J Endod. 1999. 25:653–659.

4. Jung DH, Noh YS, Lee HD, Chang HS, Ryu HW, Min KS. Microleakage of endodontic temporary restorative materials under dynamic loading. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2008. 33:198–203.

5. Lee YC, Yang SF, Hwang YF, Chung KH. Microleakage of endodontic temporary restoration materials. J Endod. 1993. 19:516–520.

6. Madarati A, Rekab MS, Watts DC, Qualtrough A. Time-dependence of coronal seal of temporary materials used in endodontics. Aust Endod J. 2008. 34:89–93.

7. Anderson RW, Powell BJ, Pashley DH. Microleakage of temporary restorations in complex endodontic access preparations. J Endod. 1989. 15:526–529.

8. Shemesh H, Souza EM, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Glucose reactivity with filling materials as a limitation for using the glucose leakage model. Int Endod J. 2008. 41:869–872.

9. Xu Q, Fan MW, Fan B, Cheung GS, Hu HL. A new quantitative method using glucose for analysis of endodontic leakage. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005. 99:107–111.

10. Lai YY, Pai L, Chen CP. Marginal leakage of different temporary restorations in standardized complex endodontic access preparations. J Endod. 2007. 33:875–878.

11. Cruz EV, Shigetani Y, Ishikawa K, Kota K, Iwaku M, Goodis HE. A laboratory study of coronal microleakage using four temporary restorative materials. Int Endod J. 2002. 35:315.

12. Uçtaşli MB, Tinaz AC. Microleakage of different types of temporary restorative materials used in endodontics. J Oral Sci. 2000. 42:63. 67.

13. Teplitsky PE, Meimaris IT. Sealing ability of Cavit and TERM as intermediate restorative materials. J Endod. 1988. 14:278–282.

14. Cho NY, Lee IB. Polymerization shrinkage, hygroscopic expansion and microleakage of resin-based temporary filling materials. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2008. 33:115–124.

15. Deveaux E, Hildelbert P, Neut C, Boniface B, Romond C. Bacterial microleakage of Cavit, IRM, and Term. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992. 74:634–643.

16. Uranga A, Blum JY, Esber S, Parahy E, Prado C. A comparative study of four coronal obturation materials in endodontic treatment. J Endod. 1999. 25:178–180.

17. Zaia AA, Nakagawa R, De Quadros I, Gomes BP, Ferraz CC, Teixeira FB, Souza-Filho FJ. An in vitro evaluation of four materials as barriers to coronal microleakage in root-filled teeth. Int Endod J. 2002. 35:729–734.

18. Burrow MF, Nopnakeepong U, Phrukkanon S. A comparison of microtensile bond strengths of several dentine bonding systems to primary and permanent dentine. Dent Mater. 2002. 18:239–245.

19. Xie H, Zhang F, Wu Y, Chen C, Liu W. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J. 2008. 53:325–331.

20. Naoum HJ, Chandler NP. Temporization for endodontics. Int Endod J. 2002. 35:964–978.

21. Friedman S. Retrograde approaches in endodontic therapy. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1991. 7:97–107.