The differences of microleakage smart dentin replacement, glass ionomer cement and a flowable resin composite as orifice barrier in root canal treated

Erma Sofiani; Emilisa Sari

doi:10.7126/cumudj.991952

EN

The differences of microleakage smart dentin replacement, glass ionomer cement and a flowable resin composite as orifice barrier in root canal treated

Abstract

This study was a laboratory experiment. The sample was 27 premolar teeth with one or two mandibular permanent teeth extracted consist of: a smart dentin replacement, glass ionomer cement, and a flowable resin composite. Teeth were prepared using a crown-down method and obturated using gutta percha and AH Plus. After placement of the orifice barrier with a thickness of 4 mm, the teeth were immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution at 37ºC for 24 hours. Teeth sectioned in the buccolingual direction and observation of microleakage using a stereomicroscope (M = 10×). The results showed that microleakage differences between a smart dentin replacement, glass ionomer cement, and a flowable resin composite. The smart dentin replacement has the smallest micro-leakage value of 1.70 but does not differ significantly with the flowable composite resin.

Keywords

Thanks

We wish to thank all our colleagues in the school of dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta.

References

1.Estrela C, Holland R, de Araújo Estrela CR, Alencar AHG, Sousa-Neto MD, Pécora JD, 2014. Characterization of successful root canal treatment. Braz Dent J 2014; 25: 3–11.
2.Aboobaker S, Nair BG, Gopal R, Jituri S, Veetil FRP. Effect of intra-orifice barriers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth – An ex-vivo study. J Clin. Diagnostic Res 2015; 9: ZC17–ZC20.
3.Faria ACL, Rodrigues RCS, de Almeida Antunes RP, de Mattos M, da GC, Ribeiro RF. Endodontically treated teeth: Characteristics and considerations to restore them. J Prosthodont Res. 2011; 55: 69–74.
4.Fabianelli A, Pollington S, Davidson C, Cagidiaco M, Goracci C. Scientific relevance of micro - Leakage studies. Int Dent Sa 2007; 9: 64–74.
5.Anusavice KJ. Phillip’s science of dental materials. 11th ed. Elsevier: Philadelphia; 2003
6.American Association of Endodontists, 2002. Clinical and biological implications in endodontic success. [Internet]. Endod. Colleagues Excell. [updated 2002; cited 3 March 2021] Available from: https://www.aae.org/specialty/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/07/fw02ecfe.pdf
7.Damman D, Grazziotin-Soares R, Farina AP, Cecchin D. 2012. Coronal microleakage of restorations with or without cervical barrier in root-filled teeth. Rev. Odonto Cienc 2012; 27: 208–212.
8.Yavari H, Samiei M, Eskandarinezhad M, Shahi S, Aghazadeh M, Pasvey Y. An in vitro comparison of coronal microleakage of three orifice barriers filling materials. Iran Endod J 2012; 7: 156–160.

9.Alikhani A, Babaahmadi M, Etemadi N. Effect of intracanal glass-ionomer barrier thickness on microleakage in coronal part of root in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study. J Dent (Shiraz, Iran) 2020; 21: 1–5.
10.Valadares MA, Soares JA, Nogueira CC, Cortes MI, Leite ME, Nunes E, Silveira FF. The efficacy of a cervical barrier in preventing microleakage of Enterococcus faecalis in endodontically treated teeth. Gen Dent 2011; 59: e32-37.
11.Yavari HR, Samiei M, Shahi S, Aghazadeh M, Jafari F, Abdolrahimi M, Asgary S. Microleakage comparison of four dental materials as intra-orifice barriers in endodontically treated teeth. Iran Endod J 2012; 7: 25–30.
12.Wolcott JF, Hicks ML, Himel VT. Evaluation of pigmented intraorifice barriers in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 1999; 25: 589–592.
13.Kumar G, Tewari S, Sangwan P, Tewari S, Duhan J, Mittal S. The effect of an intraorifice barrier and base under coronal restorations on the healing of apical periodontitis: a randomized controlled trial. Int Endod J 2020; 53: 298–307.
14.Özyürek T, Özsezer-Demiryürek E, Demiroğlu M, Sari ME. Evaluation of microleakage of different intraorifice barrier materials in endodontically treated teeth. J Dent Appl Open 2016; 3: 333–336.
15.Veríssimo DM, do Vale MS. Methodologies for assessment of apical and coronal leakage of endodontic filling materials: a critical review. J Oral Sci 2006; 48: 93–98.
16.Olmez A, Tuna D, Ozdoğan YT, Ulker AE. The effectiveness of different thickness of mineral trioxide aggregate on coronal leakage in endodontically treated deciduous teeth. J Dent Child 2008; 75: 260–263.
17.Ghulman MA, Gomaa M. 2012. Effect of intra-orifice depth on sealing ability of four materials in the orifices of root-filled teeth: An ex-vivo study. Int J Dent 2012; 2012: 318108
18.Tanumiharja M, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Microtensile bond strengths of glass ionomer (polyalkenoate) cements to dentine using four conditioners. J Dent 2000; 28: 361–366.
19.Singla T, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M. An evaluation of microleakage of various glass ionomer based restorative materials in deciduous and permanent teeth: An in vitro study. Saudi Dent J 2011; 24: 35–42.
20.Sidhu S, Nicholson J. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 2016; 7: 16.
21.Mount GJ. An Atlas of Glass-Ionomer Cements. 13th ed. UK: Martin Dunitz Ltd.; 2002.
22.Upadhya NP, Kishore G. Glass ionomer cement - The different generations. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2005; 18: 158–165.
23.Noort RV. Introduction to Dental Materials. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2007.
24.Marurkar A, Satishkumar KS, Ratnakar P. An in vitro analysis comparing micro leakage between smart dentin replacemet and flowable composite, when used as a liner under conventional composite. Eur J Pharm Med Res 2017; 4: 694–698.
25.Baroudi K, Rodrigues JC. Flowable resin composites: A systematic review and clinical considerations. J Clin Diagnostic Res 2015; 9: ZE18–ZE24.
26.Gallo JR, Burgess JO, Ripps AH, Walker RS, Maltezos MB, Mercante DE, Davidson JM. Three-year clinical evaluation of two flowable composites. Quintessence Int (Berl) 2010; 41: 497–503.
27.Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Colombo M, Scribante A. Surface roughness of flowable resin composites eroded by acidic and alcoholic drinks. J Conserv Dent JCD 2012; 15: 137–140.
28.Farahanny W, Dennis D, Aruldas MD. Fracture resistance of various bulk fill composite resin in endodontically treated class I premolar (An in-vitro study). J Evol Med Dent Sci 2017; 6: 5168–5171.
29.Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbagh J, Devaux J, Leloup G. Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent 2014; 42: 993–1000.
30.Sauáia TS, Gomes BPFA, Pinheiro ET, Zaia AA, Ferraz CCR, Souza-Filho FJ. 2006. Microleakage evaluation of intraorifice sealing materials in endodontically treated teeth. Oral Surgery Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology 2006; 102: 242–246.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Erma Sofiani ^*
0000-0001-8284-8125
Indonesia

Emilisa Sari
0000-0002-2684-1284
Indonesia

Publication Date

October 1, 2022

Submission Date

September 6, 2021

Acceptance Date

August 10, 2022

Published in Issue

Year 2022 Volume: 25 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.991952

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA69XG26NJ

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Sofiani E, Sari E (October 1, 2022) The differences of microleakage smart dentin replacement, glass ionomer cement and a flowable resin composite as orifice barrier in root canal treated. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 25 3 211–216.

Cited By

Effect of Composite Resin Volume and Rapid Curing on Microleakage of Composite Restorations

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1626364

The differences of microleakage smart dentin replacement, glass ionomer cement and a flowable resin composite as orifice barrier in root canal treated

Abstract

Keywords

Öz

Thanks

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

Cited By

Effect of Composite Resin Volume and Rapid Curing on Microleakage of Composite Restorations