Comparative seal ability of different temporary-filling techniques - in vitro study

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal leakage of three temporary filling techniques, which were usually used in endodontic treatment, by using the dye penetration method in resin blocks in vitro. METHODS: 180 resin blocks were randomly divided into three groups, and every block were sealed with 4 mm of the following materials: (1) Caviton^®, (2) IRM^® and (3) Double seal of 2 mm Caviton^® and 2 mm IRM^®. Each block was immersed in methylene blue dye and was evaluated at 1, 3, and 7 days. Grading of the leakage pattern was from 0 to 3, (0 = no leakage, 1= dye penetration < 1mm depth from superficial surface, 2 = 1 mm < dye penetration < 3 mm; 3 = dye penetrating > 3 mm).The Caviton^® setting depth of Caviton^® group and Double seal group was measured. Results were analyzed using ANOVA and by Turkey-Kramer HSD test (p < 0.05). RESULT: The results found all leakages were presented at the interface between material-resin block walls. There was significant difference between different sealing techniques (p=0.0295): the sealing ability of Caviton^®(0.27) was batter than IRM^®(0.77) and Double seal(0.50). The average setting depth of Caviton^® samples was 1.75±0.4501 mm. All Caviton^® samples absorbed the dye into the bulk of the material, and no Caviton^® sample was setting at the bottom layer (over 3 mm level from occlusal surface) in Caviton^® group and Double seal group, even penetration over 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Caviton^® exhibited the best sealing ability at all times, but the IRM^® group and Double seal group were more watertight. Double seal technique could provide double protection at the same time.