Coronal Bacterial Penetration after 7 days in class II endodontic access cavities restored with two temporary restorations: A Randomised Clinical Trial

Antibiofilm and antimicrobial activity of temporary filling materials on root canals: an in situ acid challenge

The present study evaluated the antibiofilm and antimicrobial effects of temporary restorative materials on root canals after an intra-oral challenge. Seventy roots were endodontically treated and divided into 5 groups: high-viscosity glass ionomer (HV-GIC), light-activated glass ionomer (RM-GIC), zinc-oxide cement without eugenol (ZO), zinc-oxide cement with eugenol (ZOE), and unsealed roots (negative control). For 28 days, 14 participants used intra-oral devices with five roots, and drops of sucrose were applied onto them. The amount of biofilm and the bacterial counts were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn, and by two-way ANOVA and Tukey (α = 0.05). HV-GIC and RM-GIC better inhibit biofilm, followed by ZO and ZOE. Unsealed roots had the largest biofilm accumulation (p = 0.002) and higher bacterial penetration than restored roots (p = 0.023). A low amount of Streptococcus was found in RM-GIC and ZOE-restored roots without difference from HV-GIC (p = 0.021). The low amount of Enterococcus (p = 0.003) was found in the ZOE-restored roots, without difference from GICs.

Microleakage Evaluation of Temporary Restorations Used in Endodontic Treatment-An Ex Vivo Study

(1) Background: Coronal microleakage can lead to endodontic treatment failure. This study aimed to compare the sealing ability of different temporary restorative materials used during endodontic treatment. (2) Methods: Eighty sheep incisors were collected, uniformized in length, and access cavities were performed, except for in the negative control group, where the teeth were left intact. The teeth were divided into six different groups. In the positive control group, the access cavity was made and left empty. In the experimental groups, access cavities were restored with three different temporary materials (IRM^®, Ketac™ Silver, and Cavit™) and with a definitive restorative material (Filtek Supreme™). The teeth were submitted to thermocycling, and two and four weeks later, they were infiltrated with ^99mTcNaO₄, and nuclear medicine imaging was performed. (3) Results: Filtek Supreme™ obtained the lowest infiltration values. Regarding the temporary materials, at two weeks, Ketac™ Silver presented the lowest infiltration, followed by IRM^®, whereas Cavit™ presented the highest infiltration. At four weeks, Ketac™ Silver remained with the lowest values, whereas Cavit™ decreased the infiltration, comparable to IRM^®. (4) Conclusion: Regarding temporary materials, Ketac™ Silver had the lowest infiltration at 2 and 4 weeks, whereas the highest infiltration was found in the Cavit™ group at two weeks and in the IRM^® group at 4 weeks.

Orifice barriers to prevent coronal microleakage after root canal treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

This systematic review aimed to compare the efficiency of orifice barriers in preventing coronal microleakage in vitro.

METHODS

Articles published in English, German and Chinese were searched for studies describing microleakage assays for the bacterial penetration of root canal-treated teeth in vitro. The final sample included 18 articles for review and meta-analysis. Risk ratios and confidence intervals were determined for dichotomous variables. Ten publications using bacterial leakage models contributed to the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The addition of orifice barriers to a root canal filling was overall effective, shown by risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) demonstrating reduced microleakage with glass ionomer cement (GIC) (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.26-0.53, P < 0.001), resin-modified GIC (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15-0.67, P = 0.01), composite resin (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.75, P < 0.001), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12-0.52, P < 0.001) and Cavit (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14-0.39, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between GIC, resin-modified GIC, composite resin and MTA orifice barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of an orifice barrier over the root canal filling is effective in the prevention of coronal microleakage in vitro. Other parameters may also affect the effectiveness of orifice barriers, including thickness and duration of exposure to the oral environment. © 2023 Australian Dental Association.