Journal of Dentistry

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

News

Journal Metrics

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

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

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

References
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]
Journal of Dentistry
Volume 21, Issue 1 - Serial Number 66
March 2020
Pages 1-5
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics