Laboratory Comparison of the Coronal Microleakage of Glass Ionomer, Proroot MTA, and Resilon as Orifice Plug in Root Canal Treated Teeth: an In Vitro Study

Background: One of the most efficient methods for preventing coronal microleakage in root canal treated teeth is an orifice plug. The present study aimed to compare the rate of the coronal microleakage of Glass ionomer, Resilon, and ProRoot MTA as an orifice plug in root canal treated teeth in vitro. Method: This study evaluated the single-rooted extracted teeth with one canal. A total of 70 single-rooted teeth with single canals were selected. Following the removal of dental crowns, root canals were cleaned and shaped through the step-back technique and were filled with gutta-percha and AH26 sealer by lateral condensation method. Afterwards, 3 mm of the gutta-percha of canal orifice was emptied. The teeth were randomly divided into three test groups (N=20), a positive control group (N=5), and a negative control group (N=5). After filling, the samples were placed in Indian ink for 72 hours and the roots were cut into two pieces. The level of color penetration was evaluated by the ×16 magnification of a stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed by the descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA test using the SPSS software version 19. Results: The mean of color penetration in the Glass ionomer, MTA, and Resilon groups was 0.69, 0.73, and 1.1, respectively. The Resilon group had a significant difference with the other two materials (p<0.5), while Glass ionomer and MTA were not significantly different. (p>0.5). Conclusion: According to the results of this study, Glass ionomer and MTA as orifice plugs are more favorable than Resilon in preventing coronal microleakage.

Laboratory Comparison of the Coronal Microleakage of Glass Ionomer, Proroot MTA, and Resilon as Orifice Plug in Root Canal Treated Teeth: an In Vitro Study Keywords:

Glass ionomer , Root Canal Obturation , ProRoot MTA