Journal of Conservative Dentistry

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2014  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 234--237

Intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study


Bandish Parekh1, Rukshin S Irani2, Sucheta Sathe2, Vivek Hegde2,  
1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Terna Dental College, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, M. A. Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Rukshin S Irani
2414, East Street, 1st Floor, Camp, Pune-411 001, Maharashtra
India

Abstract

Background: Microbial contamination of the pulp space is one of the major factors associated with endodontic failure. Thus, in addition to a three dimentional apical filling a coronal seal for root canal fillings has been recommended. Aim: The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the intra-orifice sealing ability of three experimental materials after obturation of the root canal system. Materials and Methods: Fourty single rooted mandibular premolars were decoronated, cleaned, shaped and obturated. Gutta-percha was removed to the depth of 3.5 mm from the orifice with a heated plugger. Ten specimens each were sealed with Light Cure Glass Ionomer Cement (LCGIC), Flowable Composite (Tetric N-Flow), and Light Cure Glass Ionomer Cement with Flowable Composite in Sandwich Technique along with a positive control respectively and roots submerged in Rhodamine-B dye in vacuum for one week. Specimens were longitudinally sectioned and leakage measured using a 10X stereomicroscope and graded for depth of leakage. Results: According to the results of the present study LC GIC + Tetric N Flow demonstrated significantly better seal (P < 0.01) than LC GIC. However there was no statistically significant difference in leakage (P > 0.01) between Tetric N-Flow and LCGIC+Tetric N-Flow groups. Conclusion: In the current study LCGIC+Tetric N-Flow was found to be superior over other experimental materials as intra-orifice barriers.



How to cite this article:
Parekh B, Irani RS, Sathe S, Hegde V. Intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study.J Conserv Dent 2014;17:234-237


How to cite this URL:
Parekh B, Irani RS, Sathe S, Hegde V. Intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Aug 22 ];17:234-237
Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2014/17/3/234/131783


Full Text

 INTRODUCTION



The outcome of endodontic treatment is influenced by several factors like the preoperative status of the root canal, presence of periapical lesion, previous root canal treatment (RCT), the root filling quality, and coronal restoration. [1],[2]

Microbial infection is one of the major factors associated with endodontic failure. Therefore, every effort should be made to prevent microbial contamination of the pulp space. [3] Thus, the addition of a coronal seal for root canal fillings has been recommended. [4] Lack of coronal seal can be a detrimental factor contaminating the obturated root canal, complicating the treatment outcome. From this perspective, it is important that the intracanal barrier should provide adequate coronal seal and prevent the entry of bacterial toxins into the root canal that compromises the success of the RCT. [5]

Without an adequate coronal seal, long-term success remains questionable and failure to maintain the seal may expose obturated root canals to microbes that could retard healing and create infection in the periradicular, periodontal ligament or supporting osseous structures. [6]

Placement of a suitable material over the coronal gutta-percha to act as a barrier to coronal microleakage would be advantageous in reducing leakage and increasing possibilities for success.

The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the intraorifice sealing ability of three experimental materials after obturation of the root canal system.

 MATERIALS AND METHODS



Forty single rooted mandibular premolars with one canal each, stored at 100% humidity were used for the study. All the teeth were shaped, cleaned, and obturated by the same operator. A # 10 k-file (Dentsply, Maillefer, Ballaigues) was inserted and advanced until it was visualized at the apical foramen. The file was retracted 1 mm and working length was established at this level. A ProTaper SX file (Dentsply/Tulsa Dental Products, Tulsa, OK) was used to flare the orifice. ProTaper S1, S2, F1, and F2 files were used sequentially as per manufacturer's instructions in a crown down technique. 5.25% NaOCl (Vishal Dentocare Pvt Ltd, India) and RC Prep (Medical Products Laboratories INC) were used in between each instrument. Once instrumentation was completed, the canal was rinsed with 2 ml of 17% ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) solution (Henry Schien Inc, USA) and a final rinse of chlorhexidine 0.2% w/v (ICPA Health Products Ltd, India). Canals were dried with sterile paper points. After apical gauging, the samples were obturated with size 25, 6% Taper gutta-percha points (Dentsply, Maillefer, Ballaigues) and AH-plus sealer (Dentsply Detrey of MbH Germany) using cold lateral compaction technique. The samples were randomly divided into four experimental groups of 10 each. Group 1 (control) contained 10 teeth obturated to the level of the orifice. Gutta-percha was removed to a depth of 3.5 mm from the orifice using a # 5 Gates Glidden bur (Mani Inc, Japan) in 30 teeth. This facilitated a uniform orifice diameter of 1.3 mm at its widest point.

LightCure Glass Ionomer Cement (LCGIC; GC corporation, Tokyo, Japan), Tetric N-Flow (Ivoclar Vivadent; flowable composite) and a combination of LCGIC + Tetric N-Flow composite were placed into the orifice as per manufacturer's directions in samples of respective three groups. Teeth of control group were obturated with gutta-percha at the level of the orifice and no intraorifice barrier was placed. Each tooth was placed into a coded container and allowed for sealer and all experimental materials to set. All these samples were kept in humidor for 48 h.

Three layers of nail varnish were placed on all experimental teeth coating their root surface from root apex to the level of the cementoenamel junction. Samples were submerged in a vacuum flask containing rhodamine-B dye, subjected to vacuum pressure of 75 torr for 30 min and allowed to remain in the dye for 7 days. [7]

The experimental samples were then rinsed with running water to remove dye from the external surface. The samples were subsequently longitudinally sectioned with the help of a diamond disc and observed under a stereomicroscope. The leakage was measured using a 10× stereomicroscope (Vardhan, India) by measuring the distance from the coronal extent of the orifice material to the greatest depth of penetration of the dye. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 11.5 for MS Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).

 RESULTS



The data obtained was subjected to statistical analysis using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's tests. [Table 1] shows mean depth of penetration in millimeters for each material.{Table 1}

Experimental samples of the Group 1 leaked 5.33 ± 0.57 mm into the gutta-percha. Group 2 showed the maximum leakage at 2.86 mm mean penetration while Group 4 showed the least at 1.79 mm mean penetration. There was statistically significant difference between Groups 2 and 4. There was no statistical difference in leakage (P > 0.01) between Group 3 and Group 4. The Mean and Standard Deviation of experimental groups is shown in [Figure 1].{Figure 1}

 DISCUSSION



The complete removal of necrotic debris, microbes, and their byproducts followed by obturation of the root canal space is the major goal of endodontic therapy. This results in the prevention of microleakage by creating a fluid tight seal and the ingress of oral fluids and microorganisms into the root canal.

A host of the anatomical parameters and clinical considerations influence the outcome of nonsurgical RCT. However, microleakage is the most commonly encountered problem influencing the long-term success of endodontic treatment.

Previously, apical microleakage was considered to be the main cause for failure of RCT. Dow and Ingle stated that failure most commonly occurs due to inadequate apical seal. However, studies have shown that a good coronal seal is equally important. [8]

Teeth obturated with gutta-percha and sealer, in the absence of a temporary restoration, showed leakage ranging from 70 to 85% of the root length within 56 days when exposed to saliva. [9]

Literature reports emphasize the need of an early final restoration. [10] Iowa group stated that "The need for an immediate and proper coronal restoration after RCT is important". [11] GIC is used commonly as an intraorifice barrier. At University of Tenesse, the Himel group reported that "the teeth without an intraorifice barrier leaked significantly more than the teeth with glass ionomer intraorifice barrier". [12]

A recent study conducted by Malik et al., [13] states that "mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and GIC as an intracanal barrier and sealer with good sealing ability for obturation may be used to minimize microleakage in endodontically treated teeth".

Hence the present study was undertaken to evaluate and compare the intraorifice sealing ability of LCGIC, Tetric N-Flow, and LCGIC + Tetric N-Flow used in combination after obturation of the root canal system.

Dye penetration method to check the microleakage is a simple, easy, and cost-effective method. This study used Rhodamine-B dye as it has small particle size, better penetration, water solubility, diffusability, and hard tissue nonreactivity. [14] The dye has been used under vacuum penetration method as it helps to remove entrapped air which can prevent complete dye penetration. [15]

The present study utilizes a material thickness of 3.5 mm to seal the coronal orifice as literature reports state that 3.5 mm of material is the minimum thickness required in coronal restoration to prevent leakage. [16]

The results of the present study indicate that LCGIC + Tetric N-Flow and LCGIC demonstrated a significantly better seal than Tetric N-Flow. Microleakage in samples where LCGIC was used as an intraorifice barrier showed more microleakage than the samples where a double intraorifice barrier of LCGIC + Tetric N-Flow was used. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups.

Better seal in flowable composite (Group III) and LCGIC with flowable composite group (Group IV) may be attributed to the command setting and better adhesion with tooth structure. Resin modified GIC's set by two mechanisms: Acid base and photochemical polymerization of water soluble monomer and methacrylate groups. [17] Polymerization shrinkage still occurs largely due to the resin component; however, immature cement continues to take up fluid from dentin causing the material to expand which compensates for polymerisation shrinkage. [18] Better sealing ability of LCGIC may be attributed to:

Adhesion of LCGIC by development of an ion-exchange layer adjacent to dentin andShear bond strength of LCGIC which is higher than conventional GIC. [19],[20],[21]

Tetric N-Flow has shown more leakage than LCGIC + Tetric N-Flow and LCGIC groups. This observation is in accordance to studies conducted by Diaz-Arnold and Wilcox, Carman and Wallace, Roghanizad and Jones, and Galvan et al., where composite showed substantial leakage. [22],[23],[24],[25]

 CONCLUSION



Thus, the present study concludes that double seal is required which could be achieved by using an intraorifice barrier to reduce microleakage. In the current study, LCGIC + Tetric N-Flow was found to be superior over other experimental materials as intraorifice barriers. However, further long-term research may confirm better clinical results.

References

1Friedman S, Abitbol S, Lawrence HP. Treatment outcome in endodontics: The Toronto study. Phase 1: Initial treatment. J Endod 2003;29:787-93.
2Farzaneh M, Abitbol S, Friedman S. Treatment outcome in endodontics: The Toronto study. Phases I and II: Orthograde retreatment. J Endod 2004;30:627-33.
3Schwartz RS, Fransman R. Adhesive dentistry and endodontics: Materials, clinical strategies and procedures for restoration of access cavities: A review. J Endod 2005;31:151-65.
4Ricucci D, Gröndahl K, Bergenholtz G. Periapical status of root-filled teeth exposed to the oral environment by loss of restoration or caries. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;90:354-9.
5Vijay R, Indira R. Effect of glass-ionomer cement as an intra-canal barrier in post space prepared teeth: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2009;12:65-8.
6Pisano DM, DiFiore PM, McClanahan SB, Lautenschlager EP, Duncan JL. Intraorifice sealing of gutta-percha obturated root canals to prevent coronal microleakage. J Endod 1998;24:659-62.
7Jenkins S, Kulild J, Williams K, Lyons W, Lee C. Sealing ability of three materials in the orifice of root canal systems obturated with gutta-percha. J Endod 2006;32:225-7.
8Torabinejad M, Ung B, Kettering JD. In vitro bacterial penetration of coronally unsealed endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 1990;16:566-9.
9Madison S, Swanson K, Chiles SA. An evaluation of coronal microleakage in endodontically treated teeth. Part II: Sealer types. J Endod 1987;13:109-12.
10Khayat A, Lee SJ, Torabinejad M. Human saliva penetration of coronally unsealed obturated root canals. J Endod 1993;19:458-61.
11Alves J, Walton R, Drake D. Coronal leakage: Endotoxin penetration from mixed bacterial communities through obturated post-prepared root canals. J Endod 1998;24:587-91.
12Wolcott JF, Hicks ML, Himel VT. Evaluation of pigmented intraorifice barriers in endodotically treated teeth. J Endod 1999;25:589-92.
13Malik G, Bogra P, Singh S, Samra RK. Comparative evaluation of intracanal sealing ability of mineral trioxide aggregate and glass ionomer cement: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:540-5.
14Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Endodontic leakage studies reconsidered. Part I. Methodology, application and relevance. Int Endod J 1993;26:37-43.
15Wimonchit S, Timpawat S, Vongsavan N. A comparison of techniques for assessment of coronal dye leakage. J Endod 2002;28:1-4.
16Webber RT, del Rio CD, Brady JM, Segall RO. Sealing quality of a temporary filling material. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1978;46:123-30.
17Seiler KB. An evaluation of glass ionomer-based paste restorative material as temporary restorations in endodontics. Gen Dent 2006;54:33-6.
18Wilson AD. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3:425-9.
19Lin A, McIntyre NS, Davidson RD. Studies on the adhesion of glass-ionomer cements on dentin. I Dent Res 1992;71:1836-41.
20Burgess JO, Barghi N, Chan DC, Hummert T. A comparative study of three glass ionomer base materials. Am J Dent 1993;6:137-41.
21Kerby RE, Knobloch L. The relative shear bond strength of visible light-curing and chemical curing glass-ionomer cement to composite resin. Quintessence Int 1992;23:641-4.
22Diaz-Arnold AM, Wilcox LR. Restoration of endodontically treated anterior teeth: An evaluation of coronal microleakage of glass ionomer and composite resin materials. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:643-6.
23Roghanizad N, Jones JJ. Evaluation of coronal microleakage after endodontic treatment. J Endod 1996;22:471-3.
24Galvan RR Jr, West LA, Liewehr FR, Pashley DH. Coronal microleakage of five materials used to create an intracoronal seal in endodonticlly treated teeth. J Endod 2000;28:59-61.
25Carman JE, Wallace JA. An in vitro comparison of microleakage of restorative materials in the pulp chambers of human molar teeth. J Endod 1994;20:571-5.