Intracoronal sealing ability of two dental cements

Joh D. Wells, David Henry Pashley, Rober J. Loushine, R. Norman Welle, W. Frank Kimbroug, Patrici N. Pereira

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of sealing the coronal 2-mm of the root canals versus covering the entire pulpal floor with one of two dental-resin cements (Principle or C&B Metabond). Sixty-two molars with the occlusal half of the crowns and the apical half of the roots removed were used. Each canal was enlarged by using a #3 Gates Glidden bur and obturated with unsealed gutta-percha cones. The teeth were randomly assigned to four groups, each containing 15 teeth, plus a negative and a positive control. In group 1, 2 mm of Principle were placed over the entire pulpal floor. In group 2, Principle was placed 2 mm into each canal orifice. Groups 3 and 4 were the same as groups 1 and 2, except C&B Metabond cement was used. After the cement set, the gutta-percha was removed and the integrity of the seal was tested by fluid filtration at a pressure of 20 cm H2O at 1 h and at 1, 2, and 4weeks. The data were analyzed by a three-way ANOVA and the Student-Newman-Keuls tests at 0.05. The controls behaved as expected. Results showed that there were no statistically significant differences among the materials used or the location (p > 0.05), but there was a significant difference with respect to time. Principle leaked significantly more than C&B Metabond at 1 h (p < 0.05), but the seal became tighter over time. C&B Metabond leaked less early (p < 0.05) but increased in leakage at 4 weeks. Both materials sealed well over the 4-week study. Principle was easier to use, and sealing the entire pulpal floor was easier than sealing only the canal orifice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)443-447
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Endodontics
Volume28
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2002

Fingerprint

Dental Cements
Gutta-Percha
Tooth
Synthetic Resins
Resin Cements
Dental Pulp Cavity
Crowns
Analysis of Variance
Students
Pressure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Wells, J. D., Pashley, D. H., Loushine, R. J., Norman Welle, R., Frank Kimbroug, W., & Pereira, P. N. (2002). Intracoronal sealing ability of two dental cements. Journal of Endodontics, 28(6), 443-447. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200206000-00006

Intracoronal sealing ability of two dental cements. / Wells, Joh D.; Pashley, David Henry; Loushine, Rober J.; Norman Welle, R.; Frank Kimbroug, W.; Pereira, Patrici N.

In: Journal of Endodontics, Vol. 28, No. 6, 01.01.2002, p. 443-447.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wells, JD, Pashley, DH, Loushine, RJ, Norman Welle, R, Frank Kimbroug, W & Pereira, PN 2002, 'Intracoronal sealing ability of two dental cements', Journal of Endodontics, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 443-447. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200206000-00006
Wells JD, Pashley DH, Loushine RJ, Norman Welle R, Frank Kimbroug W, Pereira PN. Intracoronal sealing ability of two dental cements. Journal of Endodontics. 2002 Jan 1;28(6):443-447. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200206000-00006
Wells, Joh D. ; Pashley, David Henry ; Loushine, Rober J. ; Norman Welle, R. ; Frank Kimbroug, W. ; Pereira, Patrici N. / Intracoronal sealing ability of two dental cements. In: Journal of Endodontics. 2002 ; Vol. 28, No. 6. pp. 443-447.
@article{4c1a49fa6cf9425f9ee44246c7d11b84,
title = "Intracoronal sealing ability of two dental cements",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of sealing the coronal 2-mm of the root canals versus covering the entire pulpal floor with one of two dental-resin cements (Principle or C&B Metabond). Sixty-two molars with the occlusal half of the crowns and the apical half of the roots removed were used. Each canal was enlarged by using a #3 Gates Glidden bur and obturated with unsealed gutta-percha cones. The teeth were randomly assigned to four groups, each containing 15 teeth, plus a negative and a positive control. In group 1, 2 mm of Principle were placed over the entire pulpal floor. In group 2, Principle was placed 2 mm into each canal orifice. Groups 3 and 4 were the same as groups 1 and 2, except C&B Metabond cement was used. After the cement set, the gutta-percha was removed and the integrity of the seal was tested by fluid filtration at a pressure of 20 cm H2O at 1 h and at 1, 2, and 4weeks. The data were analyzed by a three-way ANOVA and the Student-Newman-Keuls tests at 0.05. The controls behaved as expected. Results showed that there were no statistically significant differences among the materials used or the location (p > 0.05), but there was a significant difference with respect to time. Principle leaked significantly more than C&B Metabond at 1 h (p < 0.05), but the seal became tighter over time. C&B Metabond leaked less early (p < 0.05) but increased in leakage at 4 weeks. Both materials sealed well over the 4-week study. Principle was easier to use, and sealing the entire pulpal floor was easier than sealing only the canal orifice.",
author = "Wells, {Joh D.} and Pashley, {David Henry} and Loushine, {Rober J.} and {Norman Welle}, R. and {Frank Kimbroug}, W. and Pereira, {Patrici N.}",
year = "2002",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00004770-200206000-00006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "443--447",
journal = "Journal of Endodontics",
issn = "0099-2399",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intracoronal sealing ability of two dental cements

AU - Wells, Joh D.

AU - Pashley, David Henry

AU - Loushine, Rober J.

AU - Norman Welle, R.

AU - Frank Kimbroug, W.

AU - Pereira, Patrici N.

PY - 2002/1/1

Y1 - 2002/1/1

N2 - The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of sealing the coronal 2-mm of the root canals versus covering the entire pulpal floor with one of two dental-resin cements (Principle or C&B Metabond). Sixty-two molars with the occlusal half of the crowns and the apical half of the roots removed were used. Each canal was enlarged by using a #3 Gates Glidden bur and obturated with unsealed gutta-percha cones. The teeth were randomly assigned to four groups, each containing 15 teeth, plus a negative and a positive control. In group 1, 2 mm of Principle were placed over the entire pulpal floor. In group 2, Principle was placed 2 mm into each canal orifice. Groups 3 and 4 were the same as groups 1 and 2, except C&B Metabond cement was used. After the cement set, the gutta-percha was removed and the integrity of the seal was tested by fluid filtration at a pressure of 20 cm H2O at 1 h and at 1, 2, and 4weeks. The data were analyzed by a three-way ANOVA and the Student-Newman-Keuls tests at 0.05. The controls behaved as expected. Results showed that there were no statistically significant differences among the materials used or the location (p > 0.05), but there was a significant difference with respect to time. Principle leaked significantly more than C&B Metabond at 1 h (p < 0.05), but the seal became tighter over time. C&B Metabond leaked less early (p < 0.05) but increased in leakage at 4 weeks. Both materials sealed well over the 4-week study. Principle was easier to use, and sealing the entire pulpal floor was easier than sealing only the canal orifice.

AB - The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of sealing the coronal 2-mm of the root canals versus covering the entire pulpal floor with one of two dental-resin cements (Principle or C&B Metabond). Sixty-two molars with the occlusal half of the crowns and the apical half of the roots removed were used. Each canal was enlarged by using a #3 Gates Glidden bur and obturated with unsealed gutta-percha cones. The teeth were randomly assigned to four groups, each containing 15 teeth, plus a negative and a positive control. In group 1, 2 mm of Principle were placed over the entire pulpal floor. In group 2, Principle was placed 2 mm into each canal orifice. Groups 3 and 4 were the same as groups 1 and 2, except C&B Metabond cement was used. After the cement set, the gutta-percha was removed and the integrity of the seal was tested by fluid filtration at a pressure of 20 cm H2O at 1 h and at 1, 2, and 4weeks. The data were analyzed by a three-way ANOVA and the Student-Newman-Keuls tests at 0.05. The controls behaved as expected. Results showed that there were no statistically significant differences among the materials used or the location (p > 0.05), but there was a significant difference with respect to time. Principle leaked significantly more than C&B Metabond at 1 h (p < 0.05), but the seal became tighter over time. C&B Metabond leaked less early (p < 0.05) but increased in leakage at 4 weeks. Both materials sealed well over the 4-week study. Principle was easier to use, and sealing the entire pulpal floor was easier than sealing only the canal orifice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036596770&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036596770&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00004770-200206000-00006

DO - 10.1097/00004770-200206000-00006

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 443

EP - 447

JO - Journal of Endodontics

JF - Journal of Endodontics

SN - 0099-2399

IS - 6

ER -