Effect of Intracanal Glass-Ionomer Barrier Thickness on Microleakage in Coronal Part of Root in Endodontically Treated Teeth: An In Vitro Study

Alikhani, Armaghan; Babaahmadi, Maryam; Etemadi, Najme

doi:10.30476/dentjods.2019.77830.

Effect of Intracanal Glass-Ionomer Barrier Thickness on Microleakage in Coronal Part of Root in Endodontically Treated Teeth: An In Vitro Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Armaghan Alikhani ¹

Maryam Babaahmadi ²

Najme Etemadi ³

¹ Dept. of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz University of Medical Sciences, Iran

² Dentist, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz University of Medical Sciences, Iran

³ Resident of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz University of Medical Sciences, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30476/dentjods.2019.77830.

Abstract

Statement of the Problem: The most common cause of endodontic treatment failures is improper coronal sealing. Therefore, besides to proper root sealing, coronal sealing which is supported by a proper restoration has a major role in endodontic treatment success, and coronal microleakage should be considered as an etiologic factor in endodontic treatment failure. Glass-ionomer (GI) has been proposed as a coronal barrier for microleakage after endodontic treatment.
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the coronal microleakage in GI-obturated root canals in endodontically treated teeth using different thicknesses of GI.
Materials and Method: In this invitro study, forty-five single-rooted extracted human teeth with single canals were collected and disinfected with 0.5% chloramine solution. After endodontic treatment, teeth were divided into 3 groups. In the group 1 to 3, 1 to 3 mm of gutta-percha was removed and GI was replaced at 1-, 2- and 3-mm thicknesses respectively. Then subgroups were placed in methylene blue dye and the microleakage was assessed using dye penetration.
Results: The mean dye penetration in groups 1, 2 and 3 were 5.1, 3.7 and 2.9, respectively, with statistically significant differences. Group 1 exhibited the highest amount of dye penetration while group 3 showed the least one. Moreover, a significant difference between groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.002) and a non-significant difference between groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.098) was detected in mean dye penetration.
Conclusion: Thicker layers of GI might decrease the coronal microleakage. GI at 3-mm thickness resulted in the best protective effect on coronal microleakage in endodontically treated teeth, though further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Keywords

Endodontically treated teeth

Glass-ionomer

Sealing

1. Ravanshad S, Ghoreeshi N. An In vitro study of coronal microleakage in endodontically‐treated teeth restored with posts. Australian Endodontic Journal. 2003; 29: 128–133. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Damman D, Grazziotin-Soares R, Farina AP, Cecchin D. Coronal microleakage of restorations with or without cervical barrier in root-filled teeth. Revista Odonto Ciência. 2012; 27: 208–212. [Google Scholar]

3. Parolia A, Kundabala M, Acharya SR, Saraswathi V, Ballal V, Mohan M. Sealing Ability of Four Materials in the Orifice of Root Canal Systems Obturated With Gutta-Percha. Endodontology. 2008; 20: 65–70. [Google Scholar]

4. Elemam RF, Majid ZS. Critical Review on Glass Ionomer Seal under Composite Resin of Obturated Root Canals. International Journal Contemporary Medical Research. Available at: [https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/307466209. ]

5. Nagaraja Upadhya P, Kishore G. Glass ionomer cement: the different generations. Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2005; 18:158–165. [Google Scholar]

6. Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2016; 7: pii E16. doi: 10.3390/jfb7030016. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Yazici AR, Celik C, Özgünaltay G, Dayangaç B. Bond strength of different adhesive systems to dental hard tissues. Operative Dentistry. 2007; 32: 166–172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Brackett WW, Gunnin TD, Gilpatrick RO, Browning WD. Microleakage of class V compomer and light-cured glass ionomer restorations. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1998; 79: 261–263. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Kolahduzan AR, Abbasi M, Rezai N, Araghi S, Esmaeili SH. Comparison of coronal microleakage of canals filled with gutta percha and resilon with a glass ionomer coronal barrier. JIDAI. 2014; 26:18–23. [Google Scholar]

10. Yamazaki PCY, Bedran-Russo AKB, Pereira PNR. Microleakage evaluation of a new low-shirinkage composite restorative material. J Operative Dentistry. 2006; 31: 670–676. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Sherwood AL, Miglani RS, Lakshminarayanan L. Efficacy of glass ionomer as a barrier material in non-vital bleaching- A stereomicroscopic study. J Endod. 2004; 16: 12–15. [Google Scholar]

12. Diwanji A, Dhar V, Arora R, Madhusudan A, Rathore AS. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine. 2014; 5: 373–377. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Damman D, Grazziotin-Soares R, Farina AP, Cecchin D. Coronal microleakage of restorations with or without cervical barrier in root-filled teeth. Revista Odonto Ciência. 2012; 27: 208–212. [Google Scholar]

14. Shetty K, Habib VA, Shetty SV, Khed JN, Prabhu VD. An assessment of coronal leakage of permanent filling materials in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study. Journal of Pharmacy & Bioallied Sciences. 2015; 7 (Suppl 2):S607–S611. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Barekatain M, Jahromi MZ, Habibagahi S. Comparison of coronal microleakage of resin modified glass ionomer and composite resin as intra-orifice barriers in internal bleaching. Caspian Journal of Dental Research. 2016; 5: 8–13. [Google Scholar]