Comparative Evaluation of Sealing Ability, Water Absorption, and Solubility of Three Temporary Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study

Abstract

BackgroundThe quality of the coronal seal of root canal filling material is important for periapical health. Absorption of water or saliva by the temporary restorative materials leads to dimensional changes, loss of retention, staining and breaking in margin contours. Hence this study was carried out to evaluate and compare the sealing properties, water absorption and solubility of IRM (intermediate restorative material), Cavit G and GC Caviton.Study designExperimental, in vitro intergroup randomized control trial.Material and methods36 non carious premolars were randomly selected assigned to three groups, 12 teeth in each. Standard endodontic access cavities of approximately 4x4mm wide were prepared followed by the root canal obturation with Gutta-percha and restoration with experimental materials. For microleakage testing dye penetration method was used with 2% methylene blue dye. Followed by evaluation and scoring under stereomicroscope at 40x magnification.Disc shaped 12 specimens for each group were prepared for each material, stored in desiccator at 37° C, weighed daily to verify mass stabilization (dry mass,m1). Thereafter, the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 7days to obtain the mass after saturation with water (m2). The specimens were placed in the desiccators again, at 37° C, and reweighed until a constant dry mass is obtained (m3). Water absorption (WS) and solubility (SL) was determined by using the formulas, WS = m3 - m2/V and SL= ml - m3/ V.ResultsGC Caviton showed least microleakage and least water absorption followed by IRM and Cavit G, the differences were statistically highly significant ( p < 0.001) and there was no statistical difference found in all the groups with respect to solubility.ConclusionsGC Caviton is best and suitable temporary restorative material in endodontic interappointments followed by IRM and Cavit GHow to cite this articlePrabhakar AR, Rani NS, Naik SV. Comparative Evaluation of Sealing Ability, Water Absorption, and Solubility of Three Temporary Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;10(2):136-141.

Marginal Leakage of Endodontic Temporary Restorative Materials around Access Cavities Prepared with Pre-Endodontic Composite Build-Up: An In Vitro Study

“…Some studies have also reported that the sealing properties of zinc oxide eugenol cement are superior to those of hydraulic temporary restorative material [10,[24][25][26], citing the tight adaptation of zinc oxide eugenol cement at the cavity-cement interface. Conversely, other previous studies concluded that the sealing ability of zinc oxide eugenol cement is inferior to hydraulic temporary restorative material [4][5][6][7][8]11]. These differences can be attributed to the different methods used for storing specimens: the studies suggesting the superiority of zinc oxide eugenol cement involved only immersion of the samples in water, whereas the studies asserting the superiority of hydraulic temporary restorative material evaluated the dye penetration after thermocycling.…”

“…Temporary restorations are also necessary to prevent contamination between the end of each treatment and the next appointment. Although many studies have investigated the sealing ability of temporary restorative materials with an intact access cavity (i.e., with remaining enamel margins) [4][5][6][7]9,12], no studies have examined the sealing ability of temporary restorative materials in an access cavity interface of built-up composite. This in vitro study therefore evaluated the sealing ability of various types of commercial temporary restorative materials to access cavity interfaces of both dentin and built-up composite, to simulate cases of severe loss of the tooth substrate.…”

“…Many studies have been conducted on the marginal sealing effect of temporary endodontic sealing materials [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Most have compared the sealing ability of these materials under conditions in which the enamel remains within the four-step scoring criteria as described by Lee et al [12]: (1) no visible dye penetration at the tooth/temporary filling interface, (2) dye penetration limited to the dentin-enamel junction, (3) dye penetration of up to half of the pulp chamber, and (4) dye penetration of over half of the pulp chamber.…”

Periodontal Pathogen Adhesion, Cytotoxicity, and Surface Free Energy of Different Materials for an Implant Prosthesis Screw Access Hole

“…The results also demonstrated that the GP cytotoxicity was time-dependent (increased with time). CE also contains zinc oxide, explaining the associated cytotoxicity [34]. Cotton, PTFE, PF, and wax were found to be biocompatible with no cytotoxicity.…”

Survey of Standard Protocols for Endodontic Treatment in Chitwan, Nepal

“…Degradation of temporary filling material due to absorption of water or saliva cause dimensional changes, microleakage, loss of retention resulting in a poor prognosis of endodontic treatment. 26,27 Proper selection of temporary filling material determines the recall visit duration. Study found that sealing ability was least for Cavit and high-water sorption and solubility compared to intermediate restorative material (IRM) and Glass ionomer cement (GIC).…”