{"title":"Polytetrafluoroetylene tape as temporary restorative material: a fluid filtration study.","authors":"Keziban Olcay, Liviu Steier, Hilal Erdogan","doi":"10.17096/jiufd.08659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the sealing ability of temporary restorative materials at 24 hrs and 1 week.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Endodontic access cavities were prepared in 56 extracted lower incisor-teeth and divided into 5 groups (n=10). Standard 5 mm deep access preparations were completed and root canals were prepared to size ISO #30 file. The access cavities were restored as follows: Group 1: temporary restorative material (Ceivitron); Group 2: glass ionomer cement (Fuji II); Group 3: zinc oxide-eugenol cement (IRM); Group 4: zinc phosphate cement (Adhesor); Group 5: polytetrafluoroetylene tape (PTFE). The quality of the coronal sealing of each specimen was measured (24 hrs and 1 week) using fluid transport model. The data was analyzed with repeated measurements ANOVA, Tukey' HSD and Paired samples T-Tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant difference was found among the groups at all time-periods (p<0.05). At 24 hrs, PTFE showed similar leakage with Ceivitron, IRM, and Fuji II but it showed higher leakage than Adhesor. At 1 week, Ceivitron showed higher leakage than PTFE, meanwhile PTFE showed similar leakage with IRM, Fuji II, and Adhesor (p>0.05). Sealing ability of IRM and PTFE groups significantly increased by time (p<0.05 and p<0.001 respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, PTFE showed an acceptable short-term sealing capability when compared to the other commonly used temporary restorative materials at 1 week measurements.</p>","PeriodicalId":30947,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry","volume":"49 3","pages":"17-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.17096/jiufd.08659","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.08659","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the sealing ability of temporary restorative materials at 24 hrs and 1 week.
Materials and methods: Endodontic access cavities were prepared in 56 extracted lower incisor-teeth and divided into 5 groups (n=10). Standard 5 mm deep access preparations were completed and root canals were prepared to size ISO #30 file. The access cavities were restored as follows: Group 1: temporary restorative material (Ceivitron); Group 2: glass ionomer cement (Fuji II); Group 3: zinc oxide-eugenol cement (IRM); Group 4: zinc phosphate cement (Adhesor); Group 5: polytetrafluoroetylene tape (PTFE). The quality of the coronal sealing of each specimen was measured (24 hrs and 1 week) using fluid transport model. The data was analyzed with repeated measurements ANOVA, Tukey' HSD and Paired samples T-Tests.
Results: A significant difference was found among the groups at all time-periods (p<0.05). At 24 hrs, PTFE showed similar leakage with Ceivitron, IRM, and Fuji II but it showed higher leakage than Adhesor. At 1 week, Ceivitron showed higher leakage than PTFE, meanwhile PTFE showed similar leakage with IRM, Fuji II, and Adhesor (p>0.05). Sealing ability of IRM and PTFE groups significantly increased by time (p<0.05 and p<0.001 respectively).
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, PTFE showed an acceptable short-term sealing capability when compared to the other commonly used temporary restorative materials at 1 week measurements.