The effect of the gap between the cast post and residual gutta-percha and cement type on microleakage of endodontically treated teeth using the fluid filtration method.

Q2 Dentistry
Dental Research Journal Pub Date : 2025-03-19 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4103/drj.drj_418_24
Ramin Mosharraf, Saeid Farahmand, Sarah Arzani, Hamidreza Hemati, Majid Abolhasani, Behnam Golshirazi, Sharare Jahangiri
{"title":"The effect of the gap between the cast post and residual gutta-percha and cement type on microleakage of endodontically treated teeth using the fluid filtration method.","authors":"Ramin Mosharraf, Saeid Farahmand, Sarah Arzani, Hamidreza Hemati, Majid Abolhasani, Behnam Golshirazi, Sharare Jahangiri","doi":"10.4103/drj.drj_418_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the distance between the gutta-percha and the post, as well as the type of cement used, on the incidence of microleakage in endodontically treated teeth.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This experimental-laboratory study involved 72 single-canal, single-rooted teeth, which were randomly sorted into six study groups and two control groups, each containing nine teeth. The six groups were further divided based on the distance between gutta-percha and post (0 mm, 0-2 mm, and >2 mm) and then categorized by cement type into glass ionomers and resins. Microleakage was evaluated using the fluid filtration method at 15 and 30 days. Data were analyzed using SPSS software, employing between-subjects effects and <i>post hoc</i> Tukey tests at a 5% significance level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cement type did not significantly affect microleakage (<i>P</i> = 0.598). However, microleakage increased significantly with larger gaps between the post and remaining gutta-percha (<i>P</i> = 0.002). No significant difference in microleakage was observed between the gapless and ≤2 mm groups (<i>P</i> = 0.328). Similarly, ≤2 mm and >2 mm groups did not show any notable difference (<i>P</i> = 0.054). However, the difference in microleakage between the gapless group and the ≥2 mm gap group was significant (<i>P</i> = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found no significant difference in microleakage between glass ionomers and resin cements. Only gaps >2 mm significantly affected microleakage.</p>","PeriodicalId":11016,"journal":{"name":"Dental Research Journal","volume":"22 ","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11970900/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/drj.drj_418_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the distance between the gutta-percha and the post, as well as the type of cement used, on the incidence of microleakage in endodontically treated teeth.

Materials and methods: This experimental-laboratory study involved 72 single-canal, single-rooted teeth, which were randomly sorted into six study groups and two control groups, each containing nine teeth. The six groups were further divided based on the distance between gutta-percha and post (0 mm, 0-2 mm, and >2 mm) and then categorized by cement type into glass ionomers and resins. Microleakage was evaluated using the fluid filtration method at 15 and 30 days. Data were analyzed using SPSS software, employing between-subjects effects and post hoc Tukey tests at a 5% significance level.

Results: Cement type did not significantly affect microleakage (P = 0.598). However, microleakage increased significantly with larger gaps between the post and remaining gutta-percha (P = 0.002). No significant difference in microleakage was observed between the gapless and ≤2 mm groups (P = 0.328). Similarly, ≤2 mm and >2 mm groups did not show any notable difference (P = 0.054). However, the difference in microleakage between the gapless group and the ≥2 mm gap group was significant (P = 0.001).

Conclusion: This study found no significant difference in microleakage between glass ionomers and resin cements. Only gaps >2 mm significantly affected microleakage.

铸造桩与残余杜仲胶间隙及水泥类型对液体过滤法根管治疗牙微渗漏的影响。
背景:本研究的目的是探讨杜仲胶与桩的距离以及所使用的粘固剂类型对根管治疗后牙齿微渗漏发生率的影响。材料与方法:本实验采用72颗单管单根牙,随机分为6个研究组和2个对照组,每组9颗牙。根据杜仲胶与桩的距离(0 mm、0 ~ 2 mm和> ~ 2 mm)进一步划分6组,然后根据水泥类型将其分为玻璃离子和树脂。在15天和30天采用流体过滤法评估微泄漏。数据分析采用SPSS软件,采用受试者间效应和事后Tukey检验,显著性水平为5%。结果:水泥类型对微渗漏无显著影响(P = 0.598)。然而,随着桩与剩余杜仲胶间隙的增大,微渗漏显著增加(P = 0.002)。无间隙组与≤2 mm组微漏无显著性差异(P = 0.328)。同样,≤2 mm组和>2 mm组无显著性差异(P = 0.054)。无间隙组与≥2mm间隙组的微漏差异有统计学意义(P = 0.001)。结论:本研究发现玻璃离子与树脂胶结物在微渗漏方面无显著差异。只有bbb20 mm的间隙对微泄漏有显著影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dental Research Journal
Dental Research Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
审稿时长
52 weeks
期刊介绍: Dental Research Journal, a publication of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, is a peer-reviewed online journal with Bimonthly print on demand compilation of issues published. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.drjjournal.net. The journal allows free access (Open Access) to its contents and permits authors to self-archive final accepted version of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional / subject-based repository. The journal will cover technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in field of Dentistry. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信