Marginal Sealing Property of Temporary Restorative Materials: A Comparative Study

Ana Rose Padua, R. Perez, V. Medina
{"title":"Marginal Sealing Property of Temporary Restorative Materials: A Comparative Study","authors":"Ana Rose Padua, R. Perez, V. Medina","doi":"10.35974/ISC.V6I1.1441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study compared the marginal sealing property Provifil (Promedica, Germany), a new light-cured one-component temporary filling material with IRM (Dentsply-Caulk) and Cavit (3M ESPE). Standard box-shaped cavity preparations were completed in 40 caries-free anterior bovine teeth.  The teeth were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n = 10) and were filled with one of the three restorative materials.  In five teeth (Positive control), no restorative material was placed; while five teeth of the negative control group had no restorative material but were filled with sticky wax. After thermocycling in water baths with temperatures of 5±5°C and 55±5°C (dwell time, 30 seconds) for 200 cycles, the teeth were coated with nail varnish, leaving an area of 1 mm short of the cavity margin uncovered.  The samples were immersed in 2% Methylene blue dye solution for 10 days, sectioned and then digital pictures were taken.  Dye penetration along the walls was measured using the UTHSCA Image Tool software. The greatest depth of dye penetration was considered the score of the specimen.  Data was analyzed using One-way ANOVA (p < 0.05) and Tukey’s HSD Post Hoc Test.  Results showed that all the materials tested leaked at the tooth-restorative material interface. Provifil had the lowest mean leakage value (1.609 mm) while Cavit had the next lowest (2.028 mm).  IRM demonstrated significant leakage values (4.587 mm) signifying complete dye penetration on all the samples. There was no statistical significant difference between the marginal sealing property of Cavit and Provifil (p>0.05).  The marginal sealing property of Provifil was better than that of IRM.","PeriodicalId":7363,"journal":{"name":"Abstract Proceedings International Scholars Conference","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abstract Proceedings International Scholars Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35974/ISC.V6I1.1441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compared the marginal sealing property Provifil (Promedica, Germany), a new light-cured one-component temporary filling material with IRM (Dentsply-Caulk) and Cavit (3M ESPE). Standard box-shaped cavity preparations were completed in 40 caries-free anterior bovine teeth.  The teeth were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n = 10) and were filled with one of the three restorative materials.  In five teeth (Positive control), no restorative material was placed; while five teeth of the negative control group had no restorative material but were filled with sticky wax. After thermocycling in water baths with temperatures of 5±5°C and 55±5°C (dwell time, 30 seconds) for 200 cycles, the teeth were coated with nail varnish, leaving an area of 1 mm short of the cavity margin uncovered.  The samples were immersed in 2% Methylene blue dye solution for 10 days, sectioned and then digital pictures were taken.  Dye penetration along the walls was measured using the UTHSCA Image Tool software. The greatest depth of dye penetration was considered the score of the specimen.  Data was analyzed using One-way ANOVA (p < 0.05) and Tukey’s HSD Post Hoc Test.  Results showed that all the materials tested leaked at the tooth-restorative material interface. Provifil had the lowest mean leakage value (1.609 mm) while Cavit had the next lowest (2.028 mm).  IRM demonstrated significant leakage values (4.587 mm) signifying complete dye penetration on all the samples. There was no statistical significant difference between the marginal sealing property of Cavit and Provifil (p>0.05).  The marginal sealing property of Provifil was better than that of IRM.
临时修复材料边缘密封性能的比较研究
本研究比较了新型光固化单组分临时填充材料Provifil(德国Promedica)与IRM (Dentsply-Caulk)和Cavit (3M ESPE)的边缘密封性能。对40颗无龋的牛前牙进行标准箱形空腔制备。将牙齿随机分为4组(n = 10),分别使用3种修复材料中的一种进行充填。5颗牙(阳性对照)未放置修复材料;阴性对照组5颗牙无修复材料,充填黏性牙蜡。在温度为5±5°C和55±5°C的水浴中进行200次热循环(停留时间为30秒)后,给牙齿涂上指甲油,留下距离空腔边缘1mm的区域。样品在2%亚甲基蓝染料溶液中浸泡10天,切片后拍照。使用UTHSCA图像工具软件测量沿壁的染料渗透。染料渗透的最大深度被认为是样品的分数。数据分析采用单因素方差分析(p < 0.05)和Tukey’s HSD事后检验。结果表明,所有材料均在牙体-修复材料界面处渗漏。Provifil的平均渗漏值最低(1.609 mm), Cavit次之(2.028 mm)。IRM显示了显著的泄漏值(4.587 mm),表明所有样品上的染料完全渗透。Cavit与Provifil的边缘密封性能比较,差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。Provifil的边缘密封性能优于IRM。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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