Comparative evaluation of intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An In vitro study

Introduction: Coronal microleakage holds importance among various causes of failure after endodontic treatment leading to infection in the periradicular, periodontal ligament, or supporting osseous structures. Loss of coronal seal may occur due to leakage of temporary filling material or fracture of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kanwalpreet Kaur Bhullar, Shantun Malhotra, Renuka Nain, Harsheen Bedi, Ramandeep Singh Bhullar, Amandeep Singh Walia
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2019-01-01
Series:Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.jicdro.org/article.asp?issn=2231-0754;year=2019;volume=11;issue=1;spage=14;epage=19;aulast=Bhullar
id doaj-6c4ac112ed7d47a7bf7c93ddedfa9354
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6c4ac112ed7d47a7bf7c93ddedfa93542020-11-24T21:31:46ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization2231-07542019-01-01111141910.4103/jicdro.jicdro_18_18Comparative evaluation of intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An In vitro studyKanwalpreet Kaur BhullarShantun MalhotraRenuka NainHarsheen BediRamandeep Singh BhullarAmandeep Singh WaliaIntroduction: Coronal microleakage holds importance among various causes of failure after endodontic treatment leading to infection in the periradicular, periodontal ligament, or supporting osseous structures. Loss of coronal seal may occur due to leakage of temporary filling material or fracture of the permanent restoration. Therefore, the use of an intraorifice barrier material would be advantageous in reducing leakage and increasing possibilities for success. Materials and Methods: Fifty single-rooted mandibular premolars were decoronated, cleaned, shaped, and obturated. Gutta-percha was removed to the depth of 3 mm from the orifice. Ten specimens each were sealed with Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent), Biodentine (Septodont), and glass-ionomer cement (GIC, GC9 high-strength posterior restoration) along with positive and negative control groups, respectively. The teeth were then submerged in dye. Specimens were longitudinally sectioned, and leakage was measured using ×10 stereomicroscope and graded for the depth of microleakage. Results: The samples were subjected to statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test and showed that mean microleakage values in all the groups were significantly different from each other (P < 0.001) with the lowest microleakage in Biodentine followed by GIC and Cention N and highest in positive control group. No microleakage was seen in negative control group. Conclusion: The present study concluded that intraorifice barrier placement provides better coronal seal, prevents microleakage, and enhances the longevity of postobturation restorations. Biodentine proved to be the best followed by GIC, Cention N, and control groups.http://www.jicdro.org/article.asp?issn=2231-0754;year=2019;volume=11;issue=1;spage=14;epage=19;aulast=BhullarBiodentineCention Nglass-ionomerintraorifice barriersmicroleakage
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kanwalpreet Kaur Bhullar
Shantun Malhotra
Renuka Nain
Harsheen Bedi
Ramandeep Singh Bhullar
Amandeep Singh Walia
spellingShingle Kanwalpreet Kaur Bhullar
Shantun Malhotra
Renuka Nain
Harsheen Bedi
Ramandeep Singh Bhullar
Amandeep Singh Walia
Comparative evaluation of intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An In vitro study
Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization
Biodentine
Cention N
glass-ionomer
intraorifice barriers
microleakage
author_facet Kanwalpreet Kaur Bhullar
Shantun Malhotra
Renuka Nain
Harsheen Bedi
Ramandeep Singh Bhullar
Amandeep Singh Walia
author_sort Kanwalpreet Kaur Bhullar
title Comparative evaluation of intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An In vitro study
title_short Comparative evaluation of intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An In vitro study
title_full Comparative evaluation of intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An In vitro study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An In vitro study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An In vitro study
title_sort comparative evaluation of intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: an in vitro study
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization
issn 2231-0754
publishDate 2019-01-01
description Introduction: Coronal microleakage holds importance among various causes of failure after endodontic treatment leading to infection in the periradicular, periodontal ligament, or supporting osseous structures. Loss of coronal seal may occur due to leakage of temporary filling material or fracture of the permanent restoration. Therefore, the use of an intraorifice barrier material would be advantageous in reducing leakage and increasing possibilities for success. Materials and Methods: Fifty single-rooted mandibular premolars were decoronated, cleaned, shaped, and obturated. Gutta-percha was removed to the depth of 3 mm from the orifice. Ten specimens each were sealed with Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent), Biodentine (Septodont), and glass-ionomer cement (GIC, GC9 high-strength posterior restoration) along with positive and negative control groups, respectively. The teeth were then submerged in dye. Specimens were longitudinally sectioned, and leakage was measured using ×10 stereomicroscope and graded for the depth of microleakage. Results: The samples were subjected to statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test and showed that mean microleakage values in all the groups were significantly different from each other (P < 0.001) with the lowest microleakage in Biodentine followed by GIC and Cention N and highest in positive control group. No microleakage was seen in negative control group. Conclusion: The present study concluded that intraorifice barrier placement provides better coronal seal, prevents microleakage, and enhances the longevity of postobturation restorations. Biodentine proved to be the best followed by GIC, Cention N, and control groups.
topic Biodentine
Cention N
glass-ionomer
intraorifice barriers
microleakage
url http://www.jicdro.org/article.asp?issn=2231-0754;year=2019;volume=11;issue=1;spage=14;epage=19;aulast=Bhullar
work_keys_str_mv AT kanwalpreetkaurbhullar comparativeevaluationofintraorificesealingabilityofdifferentmaterialsinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy
AT shantunmalhotra comparativeevaluationofintraorificesealingabilityofdifferentmaterialsinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy
AT renukanain comparativeevaluationofintraorificesealingabilityofdifferentmaterialsinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy
AT harsheenbedi comparativeevaluationofintraorificesealingabilityofdifferentmaterialsinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy
AT ramandeepsinghbhullar comparativeevaluationofintraorificesealingabilityofdifferentmaterialsinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy
AT amandeepsinghwalia comparativeevaluationofintraorificesealingabilityofdifferentmaterialsinendodonticallytreatedteethaninvitrostudy
_version_ 1725959840392544256