Microleakage of endodontic temporary restorative materials

Lee, Yeun Chang; Yang, Shue Fen; Hwang, Yih Fung; Chueh, Lin H.; Chung, Kwok Hung

doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(06)81494-9

Cited by 40 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dye penetration was observed not only at the glass tube-material interface, but also into the body of the materials. A similar finding was described in previous studies 3,4,15) . However, the penetration pattern differed with materials.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Amongst which, Cavit showed the best sealing property which was good even when bacteria were present 12) . Lee et al 3) compared the sealing properties of IRM, Cavit, and Caviton. According to their report, Caviton provided the best seal, whereby dye penetration was within the dentino-enamel junction and that expansion by water absorption during setting caused the material to adhere closely to the cavity wall.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hydraulic temporary sealing materials are based on calcium sulfate: they set upon contact with saliva in the oral cavity. During setting, the materials begin to chemically react and adhere to dentin as they undergo linear hygroscopic expansion like plaster, thereby resulting in good sealing ability [1][2][3][4][5] . However, as water gradually permeates into the material, the setting time will be extended.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Setting properties and sealing ability of hydraulic temporary sealing materials

Ogura¹,

Katsuumi²

2008

Dent. Mater. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study sought to investigate the setting progress and sealing ability of hydraulic temporary sealing materials used in endodontic treatment: Lumicon, Caviton, and HY-Seal. To evaluate setting progress, the materials were filled into glass tubes with one end sealed and immersed in water. After immersion, a measurement apparatus was inserted from the nonimmersed end and the set area was determined by subtracting the unset area from the sample thickness. To evaluate sealing ability, materials were filled into glass tubes and divided into four groups based on different immersion times. Thermal cycling and dye penetration were performed. At 7 days, the setting depths of HY-Seal and Caviton were almost equivalent to full sample thickness, while that of Lumicon was only half of full sample thickness (p<0.01). On sealing ability, Lumicon ranked the highest followed by Caviton, whereas HY-Seal was unstable (p<0.01). These results suggested that there was no correlation between setting progress and sealing ability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Setting properties and sealing ability of hydraulic temporary sealing materials

Ogura¹,

Katsuumi²

2008

Dent. Mater. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies have shown that Caviton provides a good marginal seal when used to restore endodontic access preparations. 4,5,10 This advantage is attributed to its high hygroscopic expansion during setting, which could increase the sealing ability between the materials and the access cavity. 11,12 Spacer is a resin-based light-curing temporary filling material similar to Fermit (Vivadent, Saint-Jorioz, France), TERM (Dentsply-Caulk), or Clip (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany), which has shown good sealing ability in previous studies.…”

Section: (A) (B) (C) (D)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Many temporary restorative materials have been studied to determine their ability to seal endodontic access preparations. [2][3][4][5][6] Most studies have examined the materials in simple access preparations within an intact tooth structure. In clinical practice, however, the use of these materials frequently involves the restoration of a multisurface cavity preparation necessitated by the removal of caries or defective restorations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 multiplecomparison 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. (Restor Dent Endod 2012;37(1):29-33)

show abstract