International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2017 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Coronal Sealing Capacity of Temporary Restorative Materials in Pediatric Dentistry: A Comparative Study

Shabnam Milani, Bahman Seraj, Alireza Heidari, Atousa Mirdamadi, Mahdi Shahrabi

Citation Information : Milani S, Seraj B, Heidari A, Mirdamadi A, Shahrabi M. Coronal Sealing Capacity of Temporary Restorative Materials in Pediatric Dentistry: A Comparative Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017; 10 (2):115-118.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1419

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aims

The aim of this in vitro study is to compare the coronal microleakage of three common temporary restorative materials, namely Coltosol, Compoglass, and Zonalin, used in pediatric dentistry after endodontic treatment at different time intervals (1 week, 1, and 2 months) using dye penetration.

Materials and methods

Access cavities were prepared in 72 intact extracted premolar teeth. The samples were divided into three groups (n = 24) and filled with Coltosol, Compoglass, or Zonalin. After thermal cycling for 500 cycles (5–55°C), the teeth were immersed in 1% methylene blue dye at 37°C for 1 week (n = 8), 1 month (n = 8), and 2 months (n = 8). The samples were sectioned buccolingually, and the linear depth of dye penetration was measured using a stereomicroscope at 16 × magnification. The data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis test.

Results

There were no significant differences in the microleakage values of Coltosol and Zonalin or Zonalin and Compoglass groups at 1 week (p > 0.05) or 1 month (p > 0.05) intervals, but a significant difference was noted between Coltosol and Compoglass groups (p < 0.01); Coltosol provided a more favorable coronal seal. No significant difference was found among the experimental groups at the 2-month interval (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

At 1 week or 1 month of use, Coltosol showed better coronal seal. At 2 months, there was no significant difference apparent between the groups. A longer time lapse was associated with an increased likelihood of microleakage.

How to cite this article

Milani S, Seraj B, Heidari A, Mirdamadi A, Shahrabi M. Coronal Sealing Capacity of Temporary Restorative Materials in Pediatric Dentistry: A Comparative Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;10(2):115-118.


  1. Influence of combinations of oral bacteria on periapical tissues of monkeys. Scand J Dent Res 1982 Jun;90(3):200-206.
  2. The effects of surgical exposures of dental pulps in germfree and conventional laboratory rats. J South Calif Dent Assoc 1966 Sep;34(9):449-451.
  3. Interim and temporary restoration of teeth during endodontic treatment. Aust Dent J 2007 Mar;52(Suppl 1):S83-S99.
  4. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer: an in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2014 Oct;8(4):450-455.
  5. In vitro study to compare the coronal microleakage of Tempit UltraF, Tempit, IRM, and Cavit by using the fluid transport model. J Endod 2008 Apr;34(4):442-444.
  6. Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the technical quality of the root filling and the coronal restoration. Int Endod J 1995 Jan;28(1):12-18.
  7. In vitro comparison of dye penetration through four temporary restorative materials. Iran Endod J 2010 Spring;5(2):59-63.
  8. A temporary filling material used for coronal sealing during endodontic treatment may cause tooth fractures in large Class II cavities in vitro. Int Endod J 2015 Jan;48(1):84-88.
  9. Posterior resin-based composite: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002 Sep-Oct;24(5):465-479.
  10. Fundamentals of operative dentistry: a contemporary approach. 2nd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 2001.
  11. Directly placed esthetic restorative materials – the continuum. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1996 Aug;17(8):731-732, 734 passim; quiz 748.
  12. Resin ionomer restorative materials: the new generation. J Esthet Dent 1994;6(5):207-215.
  13. Basic denial materials. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical; 2003. p. 233.
  14. An in vitro study comparing the microleakage of four temporary sealing cements used in endodontics. Monografia de Conclusāo do Curso de Odontologia; 1996.
  15. Methodologies for assessment of apical and coronal leakage of endodontic filling materials: a critical review. J Oral Sci 2006 Sep;48(3):93-98.
  16. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005 Feb;84(2):118-132.
  17. An evaluation of microbial coronal leakage in the restored pulp chamber of root-canal treated multirooted teeth. Int Endod J 1997 Sep;30(5):318-322.
  18. Coronal microleakage assessed by polymicrobial markers. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003 Aug:4(3):1-10.
  19. Apical sealing ability of ionomeric endodontic sealers. Rev FOB 2001;9(2):29-34.
  20. Reliability of the dye penetration studies. J Endod 2003 Sep;29(9):592-594.
  21. In vitro comparison of coronal micro-leakage of three temporary restorative materials by dye penetration. Zah J Res Med Sci 2013 Jan;15(1):24-27.
  22. Coronal sealing ability of three temporary filling materials. Iran Endod J 2012 Winter;7(1):20-24.
  23. A comparative study of four coronal obturation materials in endodontic treatment. J Endod 1999 Mar;25(3):178-180.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.