World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Coronal Seal Microleakage Effect of the Four Different Types of Restorative Materials on Endodontically Treated Lower Premolar

Tioh Yen Ji, Nik Rozainah Nik Abdul Ghani, Fadzlinda Baharin, Norhayati Luddin, Tahir Yusuf Noorani, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari

Citation Information : Ji TY, Ghani NR, Baharin F, Luddin N, Noorani TY, Karobari MI. Coronal Seal Microleakage Effect of the Four Different Types of Restorative Materials on Endodontically Treated Lower Premolar. World J Dent 2020; 11 (4):255-260.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1741

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-10-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: The aim and objective of this study was to compare the quality of the coronal seal of four different types of restorative material on the endodontically treated teeth. Materials and methods: A total of 112 extracted permanent lower premolars were endodontically prepared and divided into four groups (n = 28). Each group received different types of coronal restoration. Group I, glass ionomer cement Fuji IX (GC International, Japan), Group II, nano-hydroxyapatite-silica glass ionomer cement (Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia), Group III, Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR™) (Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany), and Group IV, Zmack microhybrid universal resin composite (Zhermack SpA, Italy). Twenty-six samples from each group were then covered with two layers of nail varnish except at the restoration site, while two control samples were totally covered, including the restoration site. The samples were further divided into 2 groups of 13 samples and 1 control, each. They were immersed in the 2% methylene blue dye solution for 7 and 30 days, respectively. All samples were sectioned in a vertical direction, and dye penetration depth was measured. Data analysis was carried out using one-way analysis of variance. Results: A significant difference in sealing ability was observed (p < 0.05) with Group IV demonstrating the best sealing ability followed by Group III, Group II, and lastly Group I in dye penetration tests. The gap width between the dentin wall and restorative material in Groups III and IV was minimal compared to Groups I and II. Conclusion: Group IV (Zmack universal composite) demonstrated better coronal seal compared to silicate glass powder-based restorative materials. Clinical significance: The use of Zmack universal composite in the endodontically treated tooth can be superior in providing better coronal seal and closest adaption to the access cavity wall.

PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.