Sealing ability of cavit and TERM as intermediate restorative materials

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of temporary endodontic restorative material (TERM) and Cavit to seal endodontic access cavity margins. Forty-eight extracted human teeth were divided into four groups of 12. After endodontic access, the teeth were filled with either Cavit (24 teeth) or TERM (24 teeth). The teeth were immersed in methylene blue dye for 7 days. In addition, one-half of the Cavit and TERM groups were exposed to 1-h temperature variations (4 to 60°C) for 56 cycles. The teeth were then removed from the dye, sectioned, and evaluated for marginal leakage with the aid of a stereo microscope. Cavit maintained an effective marginal seal in 91.7% (22 of 24) of the cases compared with 33.3% (8 of 24) for TERM. Thermal cycling did not adversely affect Cavit, but led to an increased incidence of leakage with TERM. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of temporary endodontic restorative material (TERM) and Cavit to seal endodontic access cavity margins. Forty-eight extracted human teeth were divided into four groups of 12. After endodontic access, the teeth were filled with either Cavit (24 teeth) or TERM (24 teeth). The teeth were immersed in methylene blue dye for 7 days. In addition, one-half of the Cavit and TERM groups were exposed to 1-h temperature variations (4 to 60°C) for 56 cycles. The teeth were then removed from the dye, sectioned, and evaluated for marginal leakage with the aid of a stereo microscope. Cavit maintained an effective marginal seal in 91.7% (22 of 24) of the cases compared with 33.3% (8 of 24) for TERM. Thermal cycling did not adversely affect Cavit, but led to an increased incidence of leakage with TERM.