The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparing Bacterial Leakage of Three Intraorifice Barrier Sealing Materials against Enterococcus faecalis and Proteus vulgaris

Shreya Kohli Khanna, H Murali Rao, Nausheen Aga, Padma Chandra

Keywords : E. faecalis, Intraorifice barrier, LC-GIC, P. vulgaris, ProRoot MTA, Tetric N-Flow

Citation Information : Khanna SK, Rao HM, Aga N, Chandra P. Comparing Bacterial Leakage of Three Intraorifice Barrier Sealing Materials against Enterococcus faecalis and Proteus vulgaris. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (6):674-679.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3128

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 09-08-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the intraorifice sealing ability of light-cured glass-ionomer cement (LC-GIC), Tetric N-Flow, and ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) against Enterococcus faecalis and Proteus vulgaris. Materials and methods: Crowns of the eighty human mandibular teeth were decapitated. Working length determination was performed, after which cleaning and shaping were carried out. A uniform orifice diameter of 1.3 mm, at its widest point, was made. Once instrumentation was completed, the canals were irrigated and then obturated. A heat carrier was used to remove gutta-percha to the depth of 3.5 mm. Samples were then divided into a control group (Group 1) with no barrier, and three groups, namely, Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4, were restored with the LC-GIC, Tetric N-Flow, and ProRoot MTA, respectively. The groups were further subdivided into Subgroup A for checking bacterial leakage against E. faecalis and Subgroup B, against P. vulgaris. All samples were subjected to the bacterial leakage test and observed daily for the appearance of turbidity after which statistical analysis was performed. Results: Group 1 showed leakage in, as early as, 3 days. The longest time for the turbidity to appear was shown by Group 4 with an average of 31 days. The mean number of days for turbidity to appear in Group 2 and Group 3 was 23 and 24 days, respectively. Group 4 showed the best intraorifice sealing ability with a significant difference. Conclusion: The teeth with an intraorifice coronal seal had better protection against microbial leakage. Among all materials used, the ProRoot MTA showed the best intraorifice sealing ability. Clinical significance: Use of the ProRoot MTA promises long-term results in the endodontically treated teeth as compared with other materials.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Swanson K, Madison S. An evaluation of coronal microleakage in endodontically treated teeth. Part I. Time periods. J Endod 1987;13(2):56–59. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(87)80155-3.
  2. Parekh B, Irani RS, Sathe S, et al. Intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 1996;17(3):234–237. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.131783.
  3. Roghanizad N, Jones J. Evaluation of coronal microleakage after endodontic treatment. J Endod 1996;22(9):471–473. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80080-X.
  4. Yavari HR, Samiei M, Shahi S. Microleakage comparison of four dental materials as intra-orifice barriers in endodontically treated teeth. Iran Endod J 2012;7(1):25–30.
  5. Cattani-Lorentea MA, Dupuisb V, Payanc J, et al. Effect of water on the physical properties of resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1999;15(1):71–78. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00016-0.
  6. Aboobaker S, Nair BG, Gopal R, et al. Effect of intra-orifice barriers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth – an ex-vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(2):17–20. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/11609.5552.
  7. Samiei M, Aghazade M, Farhadi F, et al. Sealing efficacy of single-cone obturation technique with MTA and CEM cement: an in vitro bacterial leakage study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2014;8(2):77–83. DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2014.014.
  8. Delboni MG, Gomes BPFA, Francisco PA, et al. Diversity of Enterococcus faecalis genotypes from multiple oral sites associated with endodontic failure using repetitive sequence-based polymerase chain reaction and arbitrarily primed polymerase chain reaction. J Endod 2017;43(3):377–382. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.042.
  9. Jacob S, Kumar R, Narayanan L. Evaluation of microleakage with and without smear layer: a bacterial penetration study. J Endod 2000;12(2):77–82.
  10. Ramezanali F, Aryanezhad S, Mohammadian F, et al. In vitro microleakage of mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium-enriched mixture cement and biodentine intra-orifice barriers. Iran Endod J 2017;12(2):211–215. DOI: 10.22037/iej.2017.41.
  11. Moghadam N, Abdollahi AA, Aghabalayi Fakhim H, et al. In vitro sealing properties of calcium-enriched mixture and mineral trioxide aggregate orifice barriers during intra-coronal bleaching. Iran End J 2017;12(2):231–235. DOI: 10.22037/iej.2017.45.
  12. Jahromi MZ, Barekatain M, Hashemi NB, et al. Assessment of micro-leakage for light-cure glass ionomer and pro-root mineral trioxide aggregate as coronal barriers in intracoronal bleaching of endodontically treated teeth. Caspian J Dent Res 2017;6(1):22–28. DOI: 10.22088/cjdr.6.1.22.
  13. Jaiswal P, Jain A, Motlani M, et al. Comparative evaluation of sealing ability of light cure glass ionomer cement and light cure composite as coronal sealing material: an in vitro study. J Int Clin Dent Res Org 2017;9(1):12. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0754.203047.
  14. Maslamani M, Khalaf M, Mitra AK. Association of quality of coronal filling with the outcome of endodontic treatment: a follow-up study. Dent J 2017;5(1):5. DOI: 10.3390/dj5010005.
  15. Parolia A, Kundabala M, Acharya S, et al. Sealing ability of four materials in the orifice of root canal systems obturated with gutta-percha. Endodontology 2008;20(2):65–70.
  16. Shetty A, Srinivasan R, Nasreen F. Comparison of the sealing ability of mineral trioxide aggregate and three conventional restorative materials when placed coronally over gutta-percha as sealing materials-an in vitro study. Endodotology 2010;22:15–21.
  17. Mavec JC, McClanahan SB, Minah GE, et al. Effects of an intracanal glass ionomer barrier on coronal microleakage in teeth with post space. J Endod 2006;32(2):120–122. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.033.
  18. Metgud SS, Shah HH, Hiremath HT, et al. Effect of post space preparation on the sealing ability of mineral trioxide aggregate and gutta-percha: a bacterial leakage study. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(4):297–301. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.159729.
  19. Bailón-Sánchez ME, González-Castillo S, González-Rodríguez MP, et al. Intraorifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16(1):105–109.
  20. Jenkins S, Kulild J, Williams K, et al. Sealing ability of three materials in the orifice of root canal systems obturated with gutta-percha. JOE 2006;32(3):225–227. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.042.
  21. Agarwal RS, Hiremath H, Agarwal J, et al. Evaluation of cervical marginal and internal adaptation using newer bulk fill composites: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(1):56–61. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.148897.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.