1990
DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(06)81906-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An in vitro evaluation of injectable thermoplasticized gutta-percha, glass lonomer, and amalgam when used as retrofilling materials

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies have shown that glass ionomer cement possesses antibacterial activity due to slow release of fluoride [13]. However, clinically, the plasticity and stickiness of glass-ionomer cement impede condensation into the root-end cavity, and it is extremely sensitive to moisture [14][15][16][17]. Biodentine™ is a calcium silicate based material used for crown and root dentin repair treatment, repair of perforations or resorptions, apexification and root-end fillings.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies have shown that glass ionomer cement possesses antibacterial activity due to slow release of fluoride [13]. However, clinically, the plasticity and stickiness of glass-ionomer cement impede condensation into the root-end cavity, and it is extremely sensitive to moisture [14][15][16][17]. Biodentine™ is a calcium silicate based material used for crown and root dentin repair treatment, repair of perforations or resorptions, apexification and root-end fillings.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Oynick & Oynick 1978. Tronstad et al 1983, Olson et al 1990. Fewer research efforts have been devoted to the second pathway.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These contradictory findings are difficult to reconcile but may be attributed to differences in methodology. Many in-vitro studies use a cavity depth of 2 mm (Kos et al 1982), Becker & von Fraunhofer 1989, Shaw et al 1989, Olson et al 1990) and some even use 3 mm (Abdal & Retief 1982, Mattison et aJ, 1985, Tuggle et al 1989, King et al 1990, Clinically, this may not he realistic because it is difficult to drill 3 mm in the long axis ofthe root in the presence of a very large periapical osseous defect (Rud and Andreasen 1972) unless a small handpiece is available. The restricted access only permits an angled approach, which may result in a palatal perforation (Gutmann & Harrison 1991), Another variable which would influence the outcome of the study was the ability to condense the amalgam satisfactorily (Friedman 1991), The adaptation of amalgam to the cavity wails is an operator-sensitive procedure that is not easy to master, even under ideal laboratory conditions (Mahler & Nelson, 1984), The ease of condensation is not only a function of the properties ofthe material and manual dexterity, but also that of the cavity design.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%