A Comparative microleakage analysis of two bioactive root perforation sealing materials
Herliena Dyah Indriani(1), Margareta Rinastiti(2), Raphael Tri Endra Untara(3*)
(1) Specialist Conservative Dentistry Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(2) Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(3) Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
Complications during root canal therapy, such as perforation, might lead to failure of root canal therapy. A root perforation allows the root canal system and periradicular tissue to communicate, which may affect the treatment outcome. The ability of perforated sealing materials to stop microleakage is also crucial to the success of the treatment. The latest bioactive materials, such as bioactive calcium silicate cement (BCSC) and enhanced resin-modified glass ionomer (ERMGIC), are used. This study compares the microleakage of BCSC and ERMGIC as a material for sealing root perforations at different observation times. Thirty post-extraction premolars, no caries, and single roots were used in this study. Samples were divided into two different groups. The perforation simulation was created using cylindrical fissure round-end burs at a distance of 2 mm from the cervical line. Following the use of BCSC and ERMGIC to seal the perforation, the samples were separated into three subgroups and immersed in a simulated body fluid for different durations in an incubator set at 37°C. As soon as the samples reached the immersion period, all samples were immersed in 1% methylene blue for 24 hours. It was then divided into two parts and examined under a microscope at 50x magnification. The two-way ANOVA test demonstrated no significant variation in the microleakage of the root perforation seal, depending on the material type and the observation time. This study found that microleakage, a material used to seal root perforations, was unaffected by the types of materials used or the length of the observation period.
Keywords
Full Text:
3. HerlienaReferences
1. Hargreaves KM, Berman LH. Cohen’s Pathways of the Pulp. 11th ed., Missouri: Elsevier. 2016: 26 Available at https://file.qums.ac.ir/repository/sd/pazhohesh/Library/E-book/endodontics-dentistry/Cohens-Pathways-of-the-Pulp-11e/Cohens-Pathways-of-the-Pulp-11e_1.pdf
2. Baroudi K, Samir S. Sealing ability of MTA Used in perforation repair of permanent teeth;
literature review. Open Dent J. 2016; 10: 278-286. doi: 10.2174/1874210601610010278
3. American Association of Endodontists. Glossary of Endodontic Terms. ed 10th.
Chicago:The Association. 2020: 36. Available at https://www.aae.org/specialty/clinicalresources/glossary-endodontic-terms/
4. Estrela C, Decurcio DA, Rossi-Fedele G, Silva JA, Guedes OA, Borges AH. Root perforations:
a review of diagnosis, prognosis and materials. Braz Oral Res. 2018; 32(73): 133-146.
doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0073
5. About I. Biodentine: from biochemical and bioactive properties to clinical applications. J
Gien. 2016; 30(2): 81-88. doi: 10.1016/j.gien.2016.09.002
6. Kakani AK, Veeramachaneni C, Majeti C, Tummala M, Khiyani L. A Review on perforation
repair materials. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9(9): 9-13. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/13854.6501
7. Omrani LR, Tohidkhak S, Ahmadi E, Abbasi M, Faimani RM. Comparative evaluation of
shear bond strength of composite to dentin in presence of different dantal liners: An in-vitro
study. Research Square. 2021; 1-23. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-909993/v3
8. Croll TP, Berg JH, Donly KJ. Dental repair material: a resin – modified glass- ionomer
bioactive ionic resin-based composite. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015; 36(1): 60-
65. Avaiable at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25822408/
9. Nassar AA, El-Sayed HY, Etman WM, Genaid TM. Clinical evaluation of different bioactive
dental restorative materials. Egyptian Dental Journal. 2020; 4(4): 1124-1142.
10. Kasraei S, Haghi S, Valizadeh S, Panahandeh N, Nejadkarimi S. Phosphate ion release and
alkalizing potential of three bioactive dental materials in comparison with composite resin.
International Journal of Dentistry. 2021; 2021: 1-8. doi: 10.1155/2021/5572569
11. Muliyar S, Shameem KA, Thankachan RP, Francis PG, Jayapalan CS, Hafiz KA. Microleakage in endodontics. J Int Oral Health. 2014; 6(6): 99-104.
12. Kaur M, Singh H, Dhillon JS, Batra M, Saini M. MTA versus biodentine: review of literature
with a comparative analysis. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017; 11(8): ZG01–ZG05.
doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/25840.10374
13. Banon R. Comparison of ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE versus Compomer for class II Restorations in Primary Molars: A Split Mouth Randomized Controlled Trial. Belgia: Ghent University. 2018. Available at https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/480/337/RUG01-
002480337_2018_0001_AC.pdf
14. Hussein N, El Refai DA, Alian GA. Remineralization potential and mechanical evaluation of a bioactive glass containing composite (An ex vivo study). Maced J Med Sci. 2021; 9(D): 179-185.
doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2021.6725
15. Koutroulis A, Kuehne SA, Cooper PR, Camilleri J. The role of calcium ion release on biocompatibility and antimicrobial properties of hydraulic cements. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(19019):
1-10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55288-3
16. Malkondu Ö, Kazandağ MK, Kazazoğlu E. A Review on biodentine, a contemporary dentine replacement and repair material. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014(160951): 1-10. doi: 10.1155/2014/160951
17. Singh S, Podar R, Dadu S, Kukarni G, Rucheet P. Solubility of a new calcium silicate-based
root-end filling material. J Conserv Dent. 2015; 18(2): 149-153. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.153053
18. Al Kadhim AHA, Abdullah H. Effect of porosity on compressive strength of resin modified
glass ionomer luting cements. International Medical Journal Malaysia. 2018; 17(2): 33-40.
doi: 10.31436/imjm.v17i2.269
19. Sarna-Boś K, Skic K, Sobieszczański J, Boguta P, Chalas R. Contemporary approach to the porosity of dental materials and methods of its measurement. Int J Mol Sci. 2021; 22(16): 1-19. doi: 10.3390/ijms22168903
20. Eriwati YK, Dhiaulfikri M, Herda E. Effect of salivary ph on water absorption and solubility
of enhanced resin-modified glass ionomer. J Dent Indones. 2020; 27(3): 164-169.
doi: 10.14693/jdi.v27i3.1199
21. Andermatt L, Özcan M. Micro-shear bond strength of resin composite cement to
coronal enamel/dentin, cervical enamel, cementoenamel junction and root cementum
with different adhesive systems. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology. 2021;
35(19): 2079–2093. doi: 10.1080/01694243.2021.1872195
22. Sultan MS, Elkorashy ME, Fawzy A. Bonding effectiveness of bioactive self-adhesive
restorative material to enamel and dentin using different bonding protocols. Egyptian
Dental Journal. 2020; 66(3): 1883-1892.
doi: 10.21608/EDJ.2020.33054.1152
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.86748
Article Metrics
Abstract views : 728 | views : 343Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.