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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Singh, Fatinder Jeet, Ahuja, Lovejeet, Kakkar, Gurpreet, Kakkar, Ashish, Garg, Abhinav, Mahajan, Akshita
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