Cargando…
An in vitro Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of Five Different Root-end Filling Materials under Confocal Laser Microscopy
AIM: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to compare and evaluate the best sealing ability of five different root end filling materials i.e. Silver Amalgam, RMGIC, Cermet Cement, MTA Angelus and Biodentine using ConFocal Laser Scanning Microscope. METHODS AND MATERIAL: 90 extracted caries free, ma...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7580759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33110309 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_662_18 |
_version_ | 1783598842175815680 |
---|---|
author | Singh, Fatinder Jeet Ahuja, Lovejeet Kakkar, Gurpreet Kakkar, Ashish Garg, Abhinav Mahajan, Akshita |
author_facet | Singh, Fatinder Jeet Ahuja, Lovejeet Kakkar, Gurpreet Kakkar, Ashish Garg, Abhinav Mahajan, Akshita |
author_sort | Singh, Fatinder Jeet |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to compare and evaluate the best sealing ability of five different root end filling materials i.e. Silver Amalgam, RMGIC, Cermet Cement, MTA Angelus and Biodentine using ConFocal Laser Scanning Microscope. METHODS AND MATERIAL: 90 extracted caries free, maxillary incisor teeth were collected and were root canal treated using standardized technique. Apical root resections followed by retrograde cavity preparation were done with ultrasonic retrotip. The teeth were divided into six groups depending upon different root end filling materials (Amalgam, RMGIC, Cermet cement, MTA, Biodentine) and one control group and apical leakage was observed under confocal laser scanning microscope. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The data was analyzed by ANOVA and Post Hoc test. RESULTS: The mean dye penetration of different groups were Group I (Control Group) 0.00±(0.00) mm, Group II (Silver amalgam) 3.00±(0.00) mm, Group III (RMGIC) 1.84±(0.26) mm, Group IV (Cermet cement) 1.83 (0.25) mm, Group V (MTA) 1.25±(0.12) mm, Group VI (Biodentine) 0.26±(0.21) mm. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that Biodentine exhibits best sealing ability followed by mineral trioxide aggregate, followed by Cermet Cement and RMGIC, whereas silver amalgam exhibited least sealing ability. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7580759 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75807592020-10-26 An in vitro Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of Five Different Root-end Filling Materials under Confocal Laser Microscopy Singh, Fatinder Jeet Ahuja, Lovejeet Kakkar, Gurpreet Kakkar, Ashish Garg, Abhinav Mahajan, Akshita Contemp Clin Dent Original Article AIM: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to compare and evaluate the best sealing ability of five different root end filling materials i.e. Silver Amalgam, RMGIC, Cermet Cement, MTA Angelus and Biodentine using ConFocal Laser Scanning Microscope. METHODS AND MATERIAL: 90 extracted caries free, maxillary incisor teeth were collected and were root canal treated using standardized technique. Apical root resections followed by retrograde cavity preparation were done with ultrasonic retrotip. The teeth were divided into six groups depending upon different root end filling materials (Amalgam, RMGIC, Cermet cement, MTA, Biodentine) and one control group and apical leakage was observed under confocal laser scanning microscope. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The data was analyzed by ANOVA and Post Hoc test. RESULTS: The mean dye penetration of different groups were Group I (Control Group) 0.00±(0.00) mm, Group II (Silver amalgam) 3.00±(0.00) mm, Group III (RMGIC) 1.84±(0.26) mm, Group IV (Cermet cement) 1.83 (0.25) mm, Group V (MTA) 1.25±(0.12) mm, Group VI (Biodentine) 0.26±(0.21) mm. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that Biodentine exhibits best sealing ability followed by mineral trioxide aggregate, followed by Cermet Cement and RMGIC, whereas silver amalgam exhibited least sealing ability. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020 2020-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7580759/ /pubmed/33110309 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_662_18 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Contemporary Clinical Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Singh, Fatinder Jeet Ahuja, Lovejeet Kakkar, Gurpreet Kakkar, Ashish Garg, Abhinav Mahajan, Akshita An in vitro Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of Five Different Root-end Filling Materials under Confocal Laser Microscopy |
title | An in vitro Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of Five Different Root-end Filling Materials under Confocal Laser Microscopy |
title_full | An in vitro Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of Five Different Root-end Filling Materials under Confocal Laser Microscopy |
title_fullStr | An in vitro Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of Five Different Root-end Filling Materials under Confocal Laser Microscopy |
title_full_unstemmed | An in vitro Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of Five Different Root-end Filling Materials under Confocal Laser Microscopy |
title_short | An in vitro Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of Five Different Root-end Filling Materials under Confocal Laser Microscopy |
title_sort | in vitro comparative evaluation of the sealing ability of five different root-end filling materials under confocal laser microscopy |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7580759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33110309 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_662_18 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT singhfatinderjeet aninvitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy AT ahujalovejeet aninvitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy AT kakkargurpreet aninvitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy AT kakkarashish aninvitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy AT gargabhinav aninvitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy AT mahajanakshita aninvitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy AT singhfatinderjeet invitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy AT ahujalovejeet invitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy AT kakkargurpreet invitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy AT kakkarashish invitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy AT gargabhinav invitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy AT mahajanakshita invitrocomparativeevaluationofthesealingabilityoffivedifferentrootendfillingmaterialsunderconfocallasermicroscopy |