World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Intraorifice Barriers and Interim Restorative Materials on Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth: An In Vitro Study

Suvarna Singh, Ashish Kamboj, Paras Angrish, Sukhbir S Chopra, Sunil K Singh, Soumyadeep Ghosh, Ridyumna Garain

Keywords : Fiber reinforced composite, Fracture resistance, Intraorifice barrier, Mineral trioxide aggregate, Resin-modified glass ionomer cement

Citation Information : Singh S, Kamboj A, Angrish P, Chopra SS, Singh SK, Ghosh S, Garain R. Comparative Evaluation of Intraorifice Barriers and Interim Restorative Materials on Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2024; 15 (9):767-771.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2491

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-01-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim is to evaluate the impact of two interim restorative materials, temporary restorative material-STIC and type VII glass ionomer cement (GIC), on the fracture resistance of the tooth, utilizing different intraorifice barriers like mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) over gutta-percha. Materials and methods: Following standardized root canal preparation, eighty human mandibular premolars were split into four groups (n = 20) according to intraorifice barriers: group I consisted of gutta-percha; group II included gutta-percha + MTA; group III included gutta-percha + FRC; and group IV included gutta-percha + RMGIC. Based on interim restorative materials, each group's samples (n = 10) were further separated into two subgroups: subgroup A was restored using STIC, and subgroup B was restored using type VII GIC. A universal testing apparatus was utilized to evaluate the resistance to fracture. Kilonewtons (kN) were used to measure the forces required for fracture, and statistical analysis was done on the collected data. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used. Results: Intragroup analysis revealed that type VII GIC consistently exhibited higher fracture resistance than STIC across all groups. Intergroup comparisons indicated that FRC and RMGIC as intraorifice barriers significantly enhanced fracture resistance compared to MTA. Type VII GIC outperformed STIC in all groups. Conclusions: This study concludes that intraorifice barriers, particularly FRC and RMGIC, significantly improve the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth obturated with gutta-percha. Notably, type VII GIC emerges as a superior interim restorative material over STIC. Clinical significance: The clinical significance of this study lies in its provision of valuable guidance for practitioners in reinforcing endodontically treated teeth during temporary phases. The use of intraorifice barriers, such as FRC and RMGIC, demonstrated a substantial improvement in fracture resistance, offering clinicians effective strategies to mitigate the risk of postendodontic fractures.

PDF Share
  1. Tamse A. Iatrogenic vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol 1988;4(5):190–196. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.1988.tb00321.x
  2. Wu MK, van der Sluis LWM, Wesselink PR. Comparison of mandibular premolars and canines with respect to their resistance to vertical root fracture. J Dent 2004;32(4):265–268. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2003.12.002
  3. Alves J, Walton R, Drake D. Coronal leakage: endotoxin penetration from mixed bacterial communities through obturated, post-prepared root canals. J Endod 1998;24(9):587–591. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80115-5
  4. Jensen AL, Abbott PV, Salgado JC. Interim and temporary restoration of teeth during endodontic treatment. Aust Dent J 2007;52:S83–S99. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2007.tb00528.x
  5. Mehta S, Ramugade M, Abrar S, et al. Evaluation of coronal microleakage of intra-orifice barrier materials in endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review. J Conserv Dent 2022;25(6):588–595. DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_377_22
  6. Roghanizad N, Jones JJ. Evaluation of coronal microleakage after endodontic treatment. J Endod 1996;22(9):471–473. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80080-X
  7. Tang W, Wu Y, Smales RJ. Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 2010;36(4):609–617. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.002
  8. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J, et al. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. St. Louis: Mosby, Inc.; 2001. pp. 380–416.
  9. Zandbiglari T, Davids H, Schäfer E. Influence of instrument taper on the resistance to fracture of endodontically treated roots. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;101(1):126–131. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.01.019
  10. Ausiello P, De Gee AJ, Rengo S, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 1997;10(5):237–241. PMID: 9522698.
  11. Geramy A, Eghbal MJ, Ehsani S. Stress distribution changes after root canal therapy in canine model: a finite element study. Iran Endod J 2008;3(4):113–118. PMID: 24082903.
  12. Heling I, Bialla-Shenkman S, Turetzky A, et al. The outcome of teeth with periapical periodontitis treated with nonsurgical endodontic treatment: a computerized morphometric study. Quintessence Int 2001;32(5):397–400. PMID: 11444074.
  13. Heydecke G, Butz F, Strub JR. Fracture strength and survival rate of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with approximal cavities after restoration with different post and core systems: an in-vitro study. J Dent 2001;29(6):427–433. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(01)00038-0
  14. Nagas E, Uyanik O, Altundasar E, et al. Effect of different intraorifice barriers on the fracture resistance of roots obturated with Resilon or gutta-percha. J Endod 2010;36(6):1061–1063. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.006
  15. Plotino G, Grande NM, Bedini R, et al. Flexural properties of endodontic posts and human root dentin. Dent Mater 2007;23(9):1129–1135. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.047
  16. Nagas E, Cehreli ZC, Durmaz V, et al. Shear bond strength between a polyester-based root canal filling material and a methacrylate-based sealer with an intermediate layer of fiber-reinforced resin-based material. J Adhes Dent 2009;11(4):325–330. PMID: 19701515.
  17. de Araújo LP, da Rosa WLO, de Araujo TS, et al. Effect of an intraorifice barrier on endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Biomed Res Int 2022;2022:2789073. DOI: 10.1155/2022/2789073
  18. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Monoblocks in root canals: a hypothetical or a tangible goal. J Endod 2007;33(4):391–398. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.10.009
  19. Chen P, Chen Z, Teoh YY, et al. Orifice barriers to prevent coronal microleakage after root canal treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust Dent J 2023;68(2):78–91. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12951
  20. Balkaya H, Topçuoğlu HS, Demirbuga S. The effect of different cavity designs and temporary filling materials on the fracture resistance of upper premolars. J Endod 2019;45(5):628–633. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.01.010
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.