CORONAL BACTERIAL LEAKAGE ASSESSMENT OF DIRECT INLAY COMPOSITE VERSUS INDIRECT CERAMIC RESTORATION IN (MOD) CAVITY OF ENDODONTICALLY TREATED MAXILLARY PREMOLARS WITH A SINGLE ROOT
Main Article Content
Keywords
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the bacterial coronal leakage assessment of direct inlay composite versus indirect ceramic restoration of (MOD) cavity in endodontically treated maxillary premolars with single root.
Method: 30 human maxillary premolars with single root of fully developed apex extracted were selected. Every tooth has decoronated to 3 mm coronal to cementoenamel junction using diamond disc bur for standardization. ProTaper rotating tools were employed to chemo mechanically prepare the root canals and for radicular preparation to size F3 finishing file. ProTaper obturators #F3 were employed to obturate the canals and resin sealer (ADSEAL) were used for filling the canals via the lateral condensation method. Two mm apically of the coronal gutta percha was removed to make a space for liner material. Above the gutta-percha to the level pulp chamber floor, glass ionomer restorative was utilized as a liner material. The premolars were allocated into 2 identical test groups (group 1&2) of 10 premolars each in accordance with the final restoration techniques (direct & indirect) with other two groups of positive control with 5 intact teeth, and negative control with 5 teeth with empty (MOD) preparation of the cavity following endodontic therapy without placement of the final restoration. The specimens were subjected to thermocycling then bacterial coronal leakage assessment was done for all teeth by using two-chamber.
Results: Group 1: Direct Inlay (Composite Resin) recorded 43% leakage versus 57 % without leakage. On other hand Group 2: Indirect (Ceramic Inlay) recorded 34% leakage versus 66 % without leakage, but without statistically significant differences.
Conclusion: Ceramic Inlay as indirect technique of coronal restoration of endodontically treated teeth gives superior results in relation to direct Inlay Composite Resin in coronal bacterial leakage assessment.
References
2. S. Tabassum and F. R. Khan, “Failure of endodontic treatment: the usual suspects,” European Journal of Dentistry 2016;10, no. 01:144–147.
3. Vivian Flourish D Costa, Madhu K Bangera, Shakkira Moosa Kutty. Coronal seal in Endodontics. International Journal of Current Research 2017;9 (04): 49499-49502.
4. Nagasiri, R., Chitmongkolsuk, S. Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: A retrospective cohort study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2005; 93(2):164–170.
5. Baba, N. Z., White, S. N., Bogen, G. Endodontic Prognosis: Clinical Guide for Optimal Treatment Outcome 2017; 161-192.
6. Mannocci F., and Cowie J. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. British Dental Journal 2014; 16, no. 6:341–346.
7. Taha NA., Messer HH. Restoration of the Root-Filled Tooth. Prim Dent J. 2016; 5: 29-35.
8. Singh, R., Chaudhary, S., Manuja, N., Chaitra, T., and Sinha, A. Evaluation of Different Root Canal Obturation Methods in Primary Teeth Using Cone Beam Computerized Tomography. Clin Ped Dent J. 2015; 39(5):462-469.
9. Diwanji A, Dhar V, Arora R, Madhusudan A, Rathore AS. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2014 Jul;5(2):373-7.
10. Hemmanur S, Nasim I. Antibacterial efficacy of nanoparticle-incorporated root canal sealer against common endodontic pathogens-an in vitro study. J Pharm Res Int. 2020; 24:68–74.
11. Perdigao J, Lopes M. Dentin bonding state of the art 1999. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999;20(12):1151-8.
12. Hannig M, Friedrichs C. Comparative in vivo and in vitro investigation of interfacial bond variability. Oper Dent 2001;26(1):3-11.
13. Yildirim T, Er K, Taşdemir T, Tahan E, Buruk K, Serper A. Effect of smear layer and root-end cavity thickness on apical sealing ability of MTA as a root-end filling material: a bacterial leakage study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109(1): 67-72.
14. Prado M, Simão RA, Gomes BP. A microleakage study of gutta-percha/AH Plus and Resilon/Real self-etch systems after different irrigation protocols. J Appl Oral Sci 2014; 22(3): 174-9.
15. Oliveira SG, Gomes DJ, Costa MH, Sousa ER, Lund RG. Coronal microleakage of endodontically treated teeth with intracanal post exposed to fresh human saliva. J Appl Oral Sci 2013; 21(5): 403-8.
16. Siqueira JF Jr, Rôças IN, Abad EC, Castro AJ, Gahyva SM, Favieri A. Ability of three root-end filling materials to prevent bacterial leakage. J Endod 2001; 27(11): 673-5.
17. Efficacy of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis--a systematic review. Estrela C, Silva JA, de Alencar AH, Leles CR, Decurcio DA. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008;16:364–368.
18. Magura Mark E, Kafrawy Abdel H, Brown Cecil E, Newton Carl W. Human saliva coronal microleakage in obturated root canals: An in vitro study. J Endod 1991;17(7):324–31.
19. Khayat Akbar, Lee Seung Jong, Torabinejad Mahmound. Human saliva penetration of coronally unsealed obturated root canals. J Endod 1993;19(9):458–61.
20. Soares, C. J., Celiberto, L., Dechichi, P., Fonseca, R. B., & Martins, L. R. M. Marginal integrity and microleakage of direct and indirect composite inlays: SEM and stereomicroscopic evaluation. Brazilian Oral Research, 2005;19(4):295–301.
21. Benk J (2007) Conservative restorative treatment using a single visit, all-ceramic CAD/CAM system. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2007;19(1):35–40.
22. Maravic T, Mazzoni A, Comba A et al. How stable is dentin as a substrate for bonding? Curr Oral Health Rep 2017; 4:248–257.
23. Van Dijken JWV, Hasselrot L, Örmin A, Olofsson A-L. Durability of extensive dentin–enamel-bonded ceramic coverages (IPS Empress). A 5-year follow-up. Eur J Oral Sci 2001; 109:222–229.