International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

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

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Sealing Ability, Water Absorption, and Solubility of Three Temporary Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study

AR Prabhakar, N Shantha Rani

Citation Information : Prabhakar A, Rani NS. Comparative Evaluation of Sealing Ability, Water Absorption, and Solubility of Three Temporary Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017; 10 (2):136-141.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1423

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2017

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


Abstract

Background

The quality of the coronal seal of root canal filling material is important for periapical health. Absorption of water or saliva by the temporary restorative materials leads to dimensional changes, loss of retention, staining and breaking in margin contours. Hence this study was carried out to evaluate and compare the sealing properties, water absorption and solubility of IRM (intermediate restorative material), Cavit G and GC Caviton.

Study design

Experimental, in vitro intergroup randomized control trial.

Material and methods

36 non carious premolars were randomly selected assigned to three groups, 12 teeth in each. Standard endodontic access cavities of approximately 4×4mm wide were prepared followed by the root canal obturation with Gutta-percha and restoration with experimental materials. For microleakage testing dye penetration method was used with 2% methylene blue dye. Followed by evaluation and scoring under stereomicroscope at 40x magnification.

Disc shaped 12 specimens for each group were prepared for each material, stored in desiccator at 37° C, weighed daily to verify mass stabilization (dry mass,m1). Thereafter, the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 7days to obtain the mass after saturation with water (m2). The specimens were placed in the desiccators again, at 37° C, and reweighed until a constant dry mass is obtained (m3). Water absorption (WS) and solubility (SL) was determined by using the formulas, WS = m3 - m2/V and SL= m1 - m3/ V.

Results

GC Caviton showed least microleakage and least water absorption followed by IRM and Cavit G, the differences were statistically highly significant (p < 0.001) and there was no statistical difference found in all the groups with respect to solubility.

Conclusions

GC Caviton is best and suitable temporary restorative material in endodontic interappointments followed by IRM and Cavit G

How to cite this article

Prabhakar AR, Rani NS, Naik SV. Comparative Evaluation of Sealing Ability, Water Absorption, and Solubility of Three Temporary Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;10(2):136-141.


  1. Temporization for endodontics. Int Endod J 2002 Dec;35(12):964-978.
  2. Influence of infection at the time of root filling on the outcome of endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis. Int Endod J 1997 Sep:30(5):297-306.
  3. In vitro comparison of dye penetration through four temporary restorative materials. Iran Endod J 2010 Spring;5(2):59-63.
  4. Coronal sealing ability of three temporary filling materials. Iran Endod J 2012 Winter;7(1):20-24.
  5. Coronal microleakage of four endodontic temporary restorative materials: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009 Oct;108(4):e67-e70.
  6. A laboratory study of coronal microleakage using four temporary restorative materials. Int Endod J 2002 Apr;35(4):315-320.
  7. Sealing ability, water sorption, solubility and toothbrushing abrasion resistance of temporary filling materials. Int Endod J 2009 Oct;42(10):893-899.
  8. Reliability of in vitro microleakage tests: a literature review. J Adhes Dent 2001 Winter;3(4):295-308.
  9. The association between developmental enamel defects and caries in populations with and without fluoride in their drinking water. J Public Health Dent 1996 Spring;56(2):76-80.
  10. Sealing quality of a temporary filling material. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1978 Jul;46(1):123-130.
  11. Human saliva coronal leakage in obturated root canals: an in vitro study. J Endod 1991 Jul;17(7):324-331.
  12. Coronal microleakage of four temporary restorative materials in Class II-type endodontic access preparations. Restor Dent Endod 2012 Mar;37(1):29-33.
  13. Marginal leakage of temporary sealing materials used between endodontic appointments and assessed by calcium 45 – an in vitro study. J Endod 1977 Mar;3(3):110-113.
  14. Microleakage of temporary restorations in complex endodontic access preparations. J Endod 1989 Nov;15(11):526-529.
  15. An in vitro evaluation of four materials as barriers to coronal microleakage in root-filled teeth. Int Endod J 2002 Sep;35(9):729-734.
  16. Quantitative microleakage analysis of endodontics temporary filling materials using a glucose penetration model. Acta Odontol Scand 2015 Feb;73(2):137-143.
  17. Microleakage of softened temporary restorations as determined by microorganism penetration. J Endod 1981 Sep;7(9):413-417.
  18. Marginal sealing quality of IRM and Cavit as assessed by microbiol penetration. J Endod 1981 Oct;7(10):453-457.
  19. Comparative in vitro coronal microleakage study of new endodontic restorative materials. J Endod 1990 Nov;16(11):523-527.
  20. Water sorption and solubility of provisional and permanent luting cement. Hacettepe Dishekimligi Fakultesi Dergisi 2006;30(3):19-24.
  21. Solubility of root-end-filling materials: a comparative study. J Endod 2007 Sep;33(9):1094-1097.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.