Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
   
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |

 

Login  | Users Online: 2459  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 472-475

Evaluation of marginal leakage of different temporary restorative materials in Endodontics


1 Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Amazonas, Manaus, AM, Brazil
2 Department of Endodontics, State University of Amazonas, Manaus, AM, Brazil
3 Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

Correspondence Address:
Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia
Rua Siró Kaku, 72, Apto. 73 - CEP 14021-614 - Ribeirao Preto, SP
Brazil
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.123045

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the coronal marginal leakage of three temporary restorative materials used for root canal sealing after endodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: A total of 88 single-rooted teeth were submitted to biomechanical preparation and filled by lateral condensation technique. After obturation process, the teeth were randomly separated into four groups, being two teeth of each group used as positive and negative control. Temporary sealing was performed as follows: GI - Clip F (VOCO); GII - Bioplic (Biodinβmica); GIII - Vitremer (3M ESPE) and GIV - Ketak N100 (3M ESPE). Next, the specimens were immersed into Indian ink for 30 and 60- days, being 10 specimens for each time interval and then submitted to diaphanization to verify the amount of coronal leakage using a measuring microscope. Results : Leakage mean values within the 30-day period were as follows: Vitremer (0.3 mm), Ketak N100 and Clip F (0.6 mm) and Bioplic (1.7 mm). Within the 60-day period, leakage means were 1.1 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.2 mm and 2.6 mm, respectively. Conclusions: None of the materials was capable of preventing marginal leakage within the 30- and 60-day period. In both time intervals, Bioplic presented the highest mean of leakage and Vitremer the lowest.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2243    
    Printed74    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded342    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal