ABSTRACT
Introduction: Glass ionomer cement has been used for temporary restoration; however, several formulations are available. Objective: The aim of this study was compare the linear leakage of different types of glass ionomer cement - R, F, N and C. Material and methods: Forty-four third molars were used and prepared with standardized class I cavity preparations. By using gutta-percha, the cavity height was standardized in 5 mm. The samples were divided into 4 experimental groups (R, N, F and C), and 2 control groups (positive - not restored, and negative - restored using resin). The teeth were waterproofed and immersed in 2% methylene blue. After 7 days, they were sectioned and the measurement of the dye leakage was performed by stereomicroscopy (40X) using a calibrated periodontal probe. Results: Data were analysed by Kruskal Wallis and Dunn tests. There was statistically significant differences (p = 0.002) between R and C, and R and N glass ionomer groups. C and N glass ionomer groups were similar. F glass ionomer group was similar to all other groups. Conclusion: It can be concluded that different types of glass ionomer formulations can influence the peripheral sealing of the restorative material. R glass ionomer was the most effective, while C and N glass ionomers were the least ones.
ABSTRACT
O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a diferença da desobturação de quatro tipos de cimento (Acroseal, AH Plus, Endomethasone e Endo Rez). Foram utilizados 20 molares superiores, nos quais os terços cervical e médio foram preparados com brocas Gates Glidden 1, 2 e 3, os canais instrumentados com sistema ProTaper e obturados por condensação lateral, utilizando-se diferentes cimentos: Acroseal, AH Plus, Endomethasone e Endo Rez. Após sete dias mantidos em estufa a 37 °C, os dentes foram desobturados com limas K e Hedströen, associadas a Gates Glidden. O tempo até chegar ao limite de trabalho foi marcado com um cronômetro digital. Os dados foram submetidos aos testes de ANOVA e Tukey, e a comparação entre os tipos de raízes foi obtida pelo teste de Krukal-Wallis. Os resultados mostraram diferença significante somente entre o AH Plus e o Endo REZ (p = 0,0167), sendo que o tipo de raiz não influenciou nos resultados obtidos em nenhum dos grupos. Pode-se concluir que o cimento obturador à base de resina epóxia dificulta a desobturação do canal radicular e os cimentos à base de resina uretanodimetacrilato, óxido de zinco e eugenol, e hidróxido de cálcio apresentam similaridade.
The aim of this study was evaluate the difference of root canal filling removal of 4 endodontic sealers (Acroseal, AH Plus, Endomethasone e Endo Rez). It were used 20 upper molars shaped by Gates Glidden 1, 2 and 3, and ProTaper rotary system, then filled by lateral condensation technique using different sealers: Acroseal, AH Plus,Endomethasone e Endo Rez. After 7 days of incubation at 37°, the root canal filling removal was performed using K-file and Hedströen associated to Gates Glidden. The time to reach the working length was recorded using a stopwatch. The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey tests, and the comparison between root canals type wasdone by Krukal-Wallis test. The results showed significant difference just between AH Plus and Endo REZ sealers (p = 0.0167), the root canal type had not influence on the root canal filling removal. It can conclude that epoxy resin-based sealer demonstrate difficulty in removing root canal filling material, and methacrylate resin-based, zinc oxide eugenol, and calcium hydroxide sealers show similarity.