The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2014 ) > List of Articles


Structural Reinforcement and Sealing Ability of Temporary Fillings in Premolar with Class II MOD Cavities

Yuri Dal Bello, João Vicente Barbizam, Vinicius Rosa

Citation Information : Bello YD, Barbizam JV, Rosa V. Structural Reinforcement and Sealing Ability of Temporary Fillings in Premolar with Class II MOD Cavities. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014; 15 (1):66-70.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1489

Published Online: 01-08-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; The Author(s).



To evaluate the capability to reinforce tooth structure and sealing ability of temporary filling materials in premolars with MOD cavities. The hypothesis is that temporary filling materials can concomitantly prevent microleakage and increase fracture resistance.

Materials and methods

Premolars received root canal treatment and MOD cavities. Cavities were restored with noneugenol cement (CIM), glass ionomer cement (GIC) or light curable composite (BIO). Higid and without restoration were controls. Materials for flexual strength and teeth were tested for microleakage and compressive strength.


GIC and Higid presented similar compressive strength, higher than other groups. Bio and GIC presented similar flexural strength higher than BIO. CIM and BIO showed similar microleakage lower than GIC.


The hypothesis was rejected as filling materials tested failed to prevent microleakage and to increase fracture resistance concomitantly.

Clinical significance

GIC may be considered to restore weakened teeth subjected to occlusal loads. BIO and CIM are better choices to microleakage in teeth not subjected to mechanical stresses.

How to cite this article

Bello YD, Barbizam JV, Rosa V. Structural Reinforcement and Sealing Ability of Temporary Fillings in Premolar with Class II MOD Cavities. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(1):66-70.

PDF Share
  1. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 1989;15(11):512-516.
  2. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: three walls versus four walls of remaining coronal tooth structure. J Prosthodont 2009;18(1):49-53.
  3. Resistance to compression of weakened roots subjected to different root reconstruction protocols. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19(6):648-654.
  4. Effect of endodontic access preparation on resistance to crown-root fracture. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;121(6):712-715.
  5. Tooth structure and fracture strength of cavities. Braz Dent J 2007;18(2):134-138.
  6. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99(3):225-232.
  7. Effect of prepared cavities on the strength of teeth. Oper Dent 1981;6(1):2-5.
  8. Effect of restorative procedures and occlusal loading on cuspal deflection. Oper Dent 2006;31(1):33-38.
  9. A temporary filling material may cause cusp deflection, infractions and fractures in endodontically treated teeth. Int Endod J 2005;38(9):653-657.
  10. Coronal microleakage of four endodontic temporary restorative materials: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108(4):e67-70.
  11. ISO 6872:2008 Dentistry—Ceramic Materials. 1999.
  12. Effect of acid etching of glass ionomer cement surface on the microleakage of sandwich restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15(3):230-234.
  13. Fracture resistance of the buccal cusps of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques. Int Endod J 2007;40(3):161-168.
  14. Numerical investigation of the factors affecting interfacial stresses in an MOD restored tooth by auto-meshed finite element method. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(6):517-525.
  15. Cuspal deflection in molars in relation to endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 1995;21(2):57-61.
  16. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with class II MOD cavities restored with Ormocer, Nanofilled and Nanoceramic composite restorative systems. Quintessence Int 2011;42(7):579-587.
  17. Effects of aging and cyclic loading on the mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110(4):330-334.
  18. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;84(2):118-132.
  19. The effect of amalgam bonding on the stiffness of teeth weakened by cavity preparation. Dent Mater 2003;19(7):680-685.
  20. Sealing ability, water sorption, solubility and toothbrushing abrasion resistance of temporary filling materials. Int Endod J 2009;42(10):893-899.
  21. The use of glass-ionomer cements in bonding composite resins to dentine. Br Dent J 1985;158(11):410-414.
  22. Sealing ability of three materials in the orifice of root canal systems obturated with gutta-percha. J Endod 2006;32(3):225-227.
  23. Effect of repeated vertical loads on microleakage of IRM and calcium sulfate-based temporary fillings. J Endod 2001; 27(12):724-729.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.