Microleakage comparison of resin modified glass ionomer and OrthoMTA used as a coronal barrier in nonvital teeth bleaching

Abstract

Background and Aim: Common causes of dental discoloration include trauma, drugs, genetic defects, decay, and age. In order to correct discoloration of pulpless teeth, internal bleaching is recommended. The aim of this study was to compare microleakage of resin modified glass ionomer and OrthoMTA used as an intraorifice barrier in non-vital bleaching. Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, 36 extracted mandibular premolars were selected and randomly divided into two experimental (n = 16) and two control groups (n = 2). 2mm of OrthoMTA and RMGI cements were placed as intraorifice barriers in the experimental groups. Subsequently, we placed a mixture of sodium perborate and 30% hydrogen peroxide as internal bleaching material into the canal and replaced it every three days. Leakage was measured using pH diffusion method by a digital PH meter. Data were statistically analyzed by using T-independent test and repeated measures and variance analysis (P<0.05). Results: The pH value of the negative control group was as same as the PH of normal saline while the PH value of positive control group was significantly higher than those of other groups. PH values of Ortho MTA and RMGI at the baseline and on the first, sixth and ninth day did not show significant differences with one another, while microleakage of OrthoMTA group was significantly lower on the third day. Conclusion: In general, OrthoMTA had less leakage than RMGI but both materials can be used as suitable barriers for internal tooth bleaching.

Colorimetric Comparison of Internal Bleaching with and without Removing Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) on Induced Coronal Tooth Discoloration by MTA

“…Studies evaluating microleakage [ 37 , 38 ] and sealing ability [ 39 ] have suggested the use of MTA which had placed in the coronal area of the root canal 1 mm below the CEJ as a cervical barrier during internal bleaching. In addition, easier removal of MTA in comparison with other cervical barriers makes it a good choice [ 38 , 40 ], although there is controversy with some studies that believe MTA removal is harder [ 41 ].…”

Root End Filling Material Which Is Better in Marginal Adaptation? An Invitro Study.

“…[12] Disadvantages, include, cost, discolorations, long setting time, have prompted the quest for more up to date materials. [13,14] Biodentine is a calcium silicate based material that has better handling properties than the MTA. [15] Different techniques have been utilized to quantify micro leakage and decide the nature of root canal materials.…”