The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2013 ) > List of Articles


Sealing Ability of Various Restorative Materials as Coronal Barriers between Endodontic Appointments

Zalilah Tapsir, Hany Mohamed Aly Ahmed, Norhayati Luddin, Adam Husein

Citation Information : Tapsir Z, Ahmed HM, Luddin N, Husein A. Sealing Ability of Various Restorative Materials as Coronal Barriers between Endodontic Appointments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14 (1):47-50.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1268

Published Online: 01-06-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; The Author(s).



To evaluate and compare the microleakage of various restorative materials used as coronal barriers between endodontic appointments.

Materials and methods

Eighty extracted human permanent posterior teeth were prepared for standardized access cavities with dimensions of 4 × 4 × 4 mm. The teeth were then randomly divided into four groups; Kalzinol, Caviton, GC Fuji IX and GC Fuji II LC. After incubation, the samples were immersed in 2% methylene blue for 7 days. The depth of penetration was measured using a digital macroscope after longitudinal sectioning of each tooth. Kruskal-Wallis (p < 0.05) and multiple Mann-Whitney test with Bonferroni correction (p < 0.008) were used for data analysis.


The degree of microleakage varied at the material/ tooth interface among the test materials, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). GC Fuji II LC group showed the least median microleakage value (0.8105 ± 0.305), followed by Caviton (1.1885 ± 0.396), GC Fuji IX (3.3985 ± 0.305) and Kalzinol (4.161 ± 0.853).


Within the limitations of this study, GC Fuji II LC exhibited the best marginal seal, and has the potential to be used as a suitable coronal barrier between endodontic appointments.

Clinical significance

Given the prime importance that dental practitioners should thoroughly restore any tooth with a suitable coronal barrier between endodontic appointments, this study shows that Fuji II LC has the ability to maintain a hermetic seal for 7 days.

How to cite this article

Tapsir Z, Ahmed HMA, Luddin N, Husein A. Sealing Ability of Various Restorative Materials as Coronal Barriers between Endodontic Appointments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(1):47-50.

PDF Share
  1. Adhesive dentistry and endodontics: Materials, clinical strategies and procedures for restoration of access cavities: A review. J Endod 2005;31:151-65.
  2. Interim and temporary restoration of teeth during endodontic treatment. Aust Dent J 2007;52(Suppl 1):S83-99.
  3. Temporization for endodontics. Int Endod J 2002;35:964-78.
  4. Coronal microleakage of three temporary restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Endod 2004;30:582-84.
  5. In vitro study to compare the coronal microleakage of Tempit UltraF, Tempit, IRM, and Cavit by using the fluid transport model. J Endod 2008;34:442-44.
  6. Coronal sealing ability of three temporary filling materials. Iran Endod J 2012;7:20-24.
  7. Bacterial and dye penetration through interim restorations used during endodontic treatment of molar teeth. J Endod 2009;35:1017-22.
  8. Bacterial leakage with mineral trioxide aggregate or a resin-modified glass ionomer used as a coronal barrier. J Endod 2004;30:782-84.
  9. A laboratory study of coronal microleakage using four temporary restorative materials. Int Endod J 2002;35:315-20.
  10. Microleakage of endodontic temporary restorative materials. J Endod 1993;19:516-20.
  11. Aetiology of root canal treatment failure: Why well-treated teeth can fail. Int Endod J 2001;34:1-10.
  12. Microleakage of intermediate restorative materials. J Endod 1990;16:116-18.
  13. Sealing properties of temporary filling materials used in endodontics. J Endod 1982;8:322-25.
  14. Assessment of coronal microleakage in intermediately restored endodontic access cavities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:716-19.
  15. Setting properties and sealing ability of hydraulic temporary sealing materials. Dent Mater J 2008;27:730-35.
  16. The use of glass ionomer cements in both conventional and surgical endodontics. Int Endod J 2004;37:91-104.
  17. Cytotoxicity evaluation of a new fast set highly viscous conventional glass ionomer cement with L929 fibroblast cell line. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:406-08.
  18. A microleakage study of temporary restorative materials used in endodontics. J Endod 1989;15:569-72.
  19. Timedependence of coronal seal of temporary materials used in endodontics. Aust Endod J 2008;34:89-93.
  20. Sealing ability, water sorption, solubility and toothbrushing abrasion resistance of temporary filling materials. Int Endod J 2009;42:893-99.
  21. The physical-mechanical performance of the new Ketac Molar Easymix compared to commercially available glass ionomer restoratives. J Dent 2006;34:582-87.
  22. Long-term assessment of the seal provided by root-end filling materials in large cavities through capillary flow porometry. Int Endod J 2006;39:493-501.
  23. The effect of curing regime on the release of hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) from resinmodified glass-ionomer cements. J Dent 1999;27:303-11.
  24. The biocompatibility of resinmodified glass-ionomer cements for dentistry. Dent Mater 2008;24:1702-08.
  25. A temporary filling material may cause cusp deflection, infractions and fractures in endodontically treated teeth. Int Endod J 2005; 38:653-57.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.