COMPARISON OF CORONAL MICROLEAKAGE OF CAST POST AND CORE, CEMENTED WITH CONVENTIONAL GLASS IONOMER CEMENT AND GLASS IONOMER CEMENT INCORPORATED WITH NANO-HYDROXYAPATITE PARTICLES: AN IN VITRO STUDY

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Pragati Agrawal ◽  
Nalinakshamma M ◽  
Surendra Kumar G.P

Statement of Problem: Microleakage is one of the major factors that determine the longevity of xed restoration. The type of luting agent used for cementation of post plays an important role in preventing bacterial microleakage. Purpose: To evaluate coronal microleakage of teeth restored with cast post and core cemented with conventional glass ionomer cement and nanohydroxyapatite incorporated glass ionomer cement. Materials and Method: 30 extracted single canal premolars were selected and endodontically treated by step-back technique, followed by obturation with gutta percha using zinc oxide eugenol sealer. Post space was prepared leaving 4mm of apical gutta percha and direct acrylic resin pattern of the root canal was made along with a core, with the help of pinjet system. This was then casted using cobalt-chromium alloy. The specimens were divided into 2 groups in which castings will be cemented using: Group 1, Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement; Group 2, Nano Hydroxyapatite incorporated Glass Ionomer Cement (6 wt%) Cemented teeth were stored in distilled water for 7 days and then immersed in silver nitrate dye for 6 hours followed by photochemical developing solution for 12 hours and nally sectioned into two halves mesiodistally. The degree of linear dye penetration into the coronal part of the specimens at dentin/cement interface was measured using a stereomicroscope at 20x magnication. Result: Coronal microleakage of cast post and core at tooth-cement interface, cemented with glass ionomer cement incorporated with 6% by weight of 80-100nm nano-hydroxyapatite particles and conventional glass ionomer cement were statistically signicant different with p = 0.015 by independent t test. The mean ± SD of conventional GIC was 2.47±0.74 and for nano-hydroxyapatite incorporated GIC was 1.73±0.80. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it is concluded that the coronal microleakage of cast post and core at tooth-cement interface, cemented with glass ionomer cement incorporated with 6% by weight of 80-100nm nano-hydroxyapatite particles is less than that of conventional glass ionomer cement

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1700
Author(s):  
Atsushi Kameyama ◽  
Aoi Saito ◽  
Akiko Haruyama ◽  
Tomoaki Komada ◽  
Setsuko Sugiyama ◽  
...  

This study aimed to examine the marginal seal between various commercial temporary restorative materials and exposed dentin/built-up composite. Sixty bovine incisors were cut above the cemento-enamel junction, and half of the dentin was removed to form a step, which was built up using flowable resin composite. The root canals were irrigated, filled with calcium hydroxide, and sealed using one of six temporary sealing materials (hydraulic temporary restorative material, temporary stopping material, zinc oxide eugenol cement, glass-ionomer cement, auto-cured resin-based temporary restorative material, and light-cured resin-based temporary restorative material) (n = 10 for each material). The samples were thermocycled 500 times and immersed in an aqueous solution of methylene blue. After 2 days, they were cut along the long axis of the tooth and the depth of dye penetration was measured at the dentin side and the built-up composite side. For the margins of the pre-endodontic resin composite build-up, the two resin-based temporary restorative materials showed excellent sealing. Hydraulic temporary restorative material had a moderate sealing effect, but the sealing effect of both zinc oxide eugenol cement and glass-ionomer cement was poorer.


2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Tamilselvam ◽  
MJ Divyanand ◽  
P Neelakantan

Objective: This aim of this study was at compare the fibroblast cytotoxicicty of four restorative materials - a conventional glass ionomer cement (GC Fuji Type II GIC), a ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cement (Amalgomer), a giomer (Beautifil II) and a resin composite (Filtek Z350) at three different time periods (24, 48 and 72 hours). Method: The succinyl dehydrogenase (MTT) assay was employed. Cylindrical specimens of each material (n=15) were prepared and stored in Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium, following which L929 fibroblasts were cultured in 96 well plates. After 24 hours of incubation, the MTT assay was performed to detect the cell viability. The method was repeated after 48 and 72 hours. The impact of materials and exposure times on cytotoxicity of fibroblasts was statistically analyzed using two way ANOVA (P=0.05). Results: Both time and material had an impact on cell viability, with giomer demonstrating the maximum cell viability at all time periods. The cell viability in the giomer group was significantly different from all other materials at 24 and 72 hours (P<0.05), while at 48 hours giomer was significantly different only with resin composite (P<0.05). Conclusions: Giomers showed better biocompatibility than conventional and ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cements and, resin composite. Ceramic reinforced glass ionomer demonstrated superior biocompatibility compared to conventional glass ionomer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document