Prabhakar A R, Shantha Rani N, V Naik Saraswathi
Professor and Head, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Bapuji Dental College & Hospital, Davangere, Karnataka, India.
Postgraduate Student, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Bapuji Dental College & Hospital, Davangere, Karnataka, India.
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2017 Apr-Jun;10(2):136-141. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1423. Epub 2017 Jun 1.
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.
Experimental, in vitro intergroup randomized control trial.
36 non carious premolars were randomly selected assigned to three groups, 12 teeth in each. Standard endodontic access cavities of approximately 4x4mm 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= ml - m3/ V.
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.
GC Caviton is best and suitable temporary restorative material in endodontic interappointments followed by IRM and Cavit G.
Prabhakar AR, Rani NS, Naik SV. Comparative Evaluation of Sealing Ability, Water Absorption, and Solubility of Three Temporary Restorative Materials: An Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;10(2):136-141.
根管充填材料的冠部封闭质量对根尖周健康至关重要。临时修复材料吸收水或唾液会导致尺寸变化、固位力丧失、染色以及边缘轮廓破损。因此，本研究旨在评估和比较IRM（中间修复材料）、Cavit G和GC Caviton的封闭性能、吸水性和溶解性。
实验性体外组间随机对照试验。
随机选取36颗非龋性前磨牙，分为三组，每组12颗牙。制备约4×4mm宽的标准根管入口洞形，随后用牙胶进行根管充填，并用实验材料进行修复。微渗漏测试采用2%亚甲蓝染料的染料渗透法。然后在40倍放大倍数的体视显微镜下进行评估和评分。为每种材料制备每组12个圆盘形标本，保存在37°C的干燥器中，每天称重以验证质量稳定（干质量，m1）。此后，将标本在37°C的蒸馏水中保存7天，以获得吸水饱和后的质量（m2）。标本再次置于37°C的干燥器中，重新称重直至获得恒定的干质量（m3）。吸水性（WS）和溶解性（SL）通过公式WS = (m3 - m2)/V和SL = (m1 - m3)/V计算得出。
GC Caviton的微渗漏和吸水性最低，其次是IRM和Cavit G，差异具有高度统计学意义（p < 0.001），且所有组在溶解性方面未发现统计学差异。
GC Caviton是根管治疗复诊期间最佳且合适的临时修复材料，其次是IRM和Cavit G。
Prabhakar AR, Rani NS, Naik SV. 三种临时修复材料封闭能力、吸水性和溶解性的比较评估：一项研究。《国际临床儿科牙科学杂志》2017；10(2):136 - 141。
