The differences of microleakage smart dentin replacement, glass ionomer cement and a flowable resin composite as orifice barrier in root canal treated
This study was a laboratory experiment. The sample was 27 premolar teeth with one or two mandibular permanent teeth extracted consist of: a smart dentin replacement, glass ionomer cement, and a flowable resin composite. Teeth were prepared using a crown-down method and obturated using gutta percha a...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Published: |
Cumhuriyet University,
2022-10-01T00:00:00Z.
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Connect to this object online. |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This study was a laboratory experiment. The sample was 27 premolar teeth with one or two mandibular permanent teeth extracted consist of: a smart dentin replacement, glass ionomer cement, and a flowable resin composite. Teeth were prepared using a crown-down method and obturated using gutta percha and AH Plus. After placement of the orifice barrier with a thickness of 4 mm, the teeth were immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution at 37ºC for 24 hours. Teeth sectioned in the buccolingual direction and observation of microleakage using a stereomicroscope (M = 10×). The results showed that microleakage differences between a smart dentin replacement, glass ionomer cement, and a flowable resin composite. The smart dentin replacement has the smallest micro-leakage value of 1.70 but does not differ significantly with the flowable composite resin. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | 1302-5805 2146-2852 10.7126/cumudj.991952 |