Leakage of amalgam, composite, and Super-EBA, compared with a new retrofill material: bone cement.
An in vitro leakage study was conducted to compare the root-end sealing ability of amalgam with cavity varnish, composite with dentin bonding agent, and Super-EBA with a new retrofill material: bone cement. Eighty single-rooted teeth were instrumented and obturated with gutta percha, resected and retroprepared. The teeth were then randomly divided into 4 groups of 20, with each group receiving one of the previously mentioned retrofill materials. The bone cement group was either etched or unetched. The teeth were immersed in silver nitrate and developer for leakage assessment. The teeth were grooved and split longitudinally to measure leakage. Statistical analysis showed that amalgam leaked significantly less than Super-EBA and unetched bone cement; composite leaked significantly less than Super-EBA. Amalgam was not statistically different from composite or etched bone cement. No significant difference between composite and both bone cements was noted, nor between both bone cements and Super-EBA.
Holt
G M
GM
Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, 666 West Baltimore Street, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Department of Endodontics, 3-D-02, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
Dumsha
T C
TC
D001843:Bone Cements; D003188:Composite Resins; D003723:Dental Amalgam; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003764:Dental Materials; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D006801:Humans; D009757:Nylons; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate; D011897:Random Allocation; D019279:Resin Cements; D012184:Retrograde Obturation; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials
C077038:Barrier (varnish); D001843:Bone Cements; D003188:Composite Resins; D003764:Dental Materials; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D009757:Nylons; C092987:Optibond; C088833:Prisma TPH resin composite; D019279:Resin Cements; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials; D003723:Dental Amalgam; C084074:Super EBA; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate