Intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate Cavit™ G, ProRoot™ MTA and Tetric ® EvoFlow as intraorifice barriers to prevent coronal microleakage in root canal treatment. Study Design: Forty-two human single rooted teeth were divided randomly in three experimental groups of 10 specimens each and two control groups. The experimental groups were prepared with hand instrumentation and cold lateral condensed technique of the gutta-percha. Four millimetres of coronal gutta-percha were removed and replaced by one of the following filling materials: Cavit™ G, Tetric ® EvoFlow or ProRoot™ MTA. In the experimental groups, leakage was measured by the concentration of leaked glucose in the apical reservoir at 1, 7, 30, and 45 days, using the enzymatic glucose oxidase method. Data were analyzed by means of Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests at α=0.05. Results: The glucose penetration results of three experimental groups increased gradually over time. No significant differences were found among groups at 24 hours and 1 week. At thirty and forty-five days, Cavit™ and Tetric ® EvoFlow values were significantly different (p=0.007 and p=0.023, respectively). Conclusions: The sealing ability of the Cavit™ G, ProRoot™ MTA and Tetric ® EvoFlow used as intraorifice materials tends to be similar over time.

<i>In vitro</i> microleakage of six different dental materials as intraorifice barriers in endodontically treated teeth

“…Pisano et al tested the coronal sealing ability of temporary filling materials to prevent microleakage of gutta-percha obturated root canals in human saliva and revealed that the IRM, Cavit, Super-EBA-filled orifice leaked less leakage than unsealed control group 40) . Another microleakage study 41) using glucose penetration model showed that Cavit, Tetric, and ProRoot MTA attained similar leakage values during the testing period when used as intraorifice barriers. As described above, previous researches support the importance of intraorifice barriers, but there is no consensus as to the protocols or materials used as the coronal barrier after root canal treatment except the thickness of the intraorifice barrier, which is recommended to be 3 to 4 mm 40,42,43) .…”

Ex-vivo Sealing Ability of Different Thicknesses of White and Gray Angelus MTA as an Intra-orifice Barrier in Endodontically Treated Teeth

“…(6) Among the various sealing materials used to produce a coronal barrier, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) has gained much attention in recent years. (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14) The original formulation of MTA, developed at Loma Linda University, is manufactured by Dentsply International (ProRoot MTA and Tooth Colored MTA; Dentsply-Tulsa Dental, Tulsa-USA; Dentsply-Johnson City-USA) (15) . Other MTA types available are white and gray Angelus mineral trioxide aggregates (WAM-TA, GAMTA; Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil).…”

“…There are a limited number of studies investigating the coronal sealing ability of MTA and most of them compare the properties of 3 mm thick WMTA with other materials (7)(8)(9) . Two investigators evaluated the coronal sealing ability of 2 mm thick ProRoot MTA (10,11) , whereas others compared the coronal sealing ability of 4 mm thick ProRoot MTA with other materials (12,13) . Only, Jenkins et al (14) compared the sealing ability of 1, 2, 3, and 4 mm thicknesses of cavit, ProRoot MTA and tetric as intra-orifice barriers.…”

Micro-tensile bond strength of adhesives to pulp chamber dentin after irrigation with Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

“…[12] Coronal leakage has a negative influence on the prognosis of root canal treatment,[2] and plays a significant role in multirooted teeth, where accessory canals may be present in the furcation area. [3] Specifically, inflammatory changes can occur in the periodontal tissues because of a direct spread of microorganisms from the pulp chamber through these accessory canals.…”