A comparative study of four coronal obturation materials in endodontic treatment

J Endod. 1999 Mar;25(3):178-80. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80137-X.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare, in vitro, the ability of temporary versus permanent materials to seal the access cavity. Eighty human maxillary single-canal teeth were prepared biomechanically and obturated with gutta-percha and an endodontic cement AH Plus, using the warm vertical compaction technique. All access cavities were sealed with 1 of 4 materials (Cavit, Fermit, Tetric, or Dyract). Microleakage was assessed by methylene blue dye penetration. The teeth were submitted to 100 thermocycles, with temperature varying from 0 degree to 55 degrees C. The greatest degree of leakage was observed with the temporary materials (Cavit and Fermit). There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in leakage between all materials except between Dyract and Tetric. This suggests that it may be more prudent to use a permanent restorative material for provisional restorations to prevent inadequate canal sealing and the resulting risk of fluid penetration.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Calcium Sulfate
  • Compomers*
  • Composite Resins
  • Dental Cements
  • Dental Leakage / prevention & control*
  • Dental Restoration, Permanent
  • Dental Restoration, Temporary
  • Drug Combinations
  • Epoxy Resins
  • Gutta-Percha
  • Humans
  • Methacrylates
  • Polymethacrylic Acids
  • Polyvinyls
  • Root Canal Filling Materials*
  • Root Canal Obturation / methods*
  • Silicates
  • Statistics, Nonparametric
  • Tooth Crown
  • Zinc Oxide

Substances

  • Compomers
  • Composite Resins
  • Dental Cements
  • Drug Combinations
  • Dyract
  • Epoxy Resins
  • Fermit
  • Methacrylates
  • Polymethacrylic Acids
  • Polyvinyls
  • Root Canal Filling Materials
  • Silicates
  • Tetric
  • epoxy resin-based root canal sealer
  • Cavit
  • Gutta-Percha
  • Zinc Oxide
  • Calcium Sulfate