Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar-Apr;19(2):111-5.
doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.178682.

An in vitro comparative evaluation of different intraorifice barriers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated roots obturated with gutta-percha

Abhishek Gupta  1 , Vipin Arora  1 , Padmanabh Jha  1 , Vineeta Nikhil  1 , Parul Bansal  1
Affiliations

An in vitro comparative evaluation of different intraorifice barriers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated roots obturated with gutta-percha

Abhishek Gupta et al. J Conserv Dent. 2016 Mar-Apr.

Abstract

Aim: To compare and evaluate the root reinforcement potential of four different intraorifice barriers: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), and nanohybrid composite (NC).

Materials and methods: Seventy-five mandibular premolars were decoronated to a standardized length, and prepared and obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. Except for control specimens, the coronal 3-mm gutta-percha was removed and filled with different materials. The specimens (75) were divided into five groups (n = 15) on the basis of the intraorifice barrier material used. Group 1: MTA, Group 2: RMGIC, Group 3: FRC, Group 4: NC, Group 5: no barrier (control). Fracture resistance of the specimens was tested.

Results: Fracture resistance of roots was significantly affected by the type of intraorifice barrier used and the following pattern was observed: RMGIC > FRC > NC > MTA.

Conclusion: Intraorifice barriers can be regarded as a viable choice to reduce the occurrence of postendodontic root fractures. Among the four tested materials, RMGIC showed the maximum reinforcement.

Keywords: Endodontically treated teeth; fracture resistance; intraorifice barrier; nanohybrid composite; reinforcement; resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC).

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Fuss Z, Lustig J, Tamse A. Prevalance of vertical root fractures in extracted endodontically treated teeth. Int Endod J. 1999;32:283–6. - PubMed
    1. Caplan DJ, Weintraub JA. Factors related to loss of root canal filled teeth. J Public Health Dent. 1997;57:31–9. - PubMed
    1. Karapinar Kazandag M, Sunay H, Tanalp J, Bayirli G. Fracture resistance of roots using different canal filling systems. Int Endod J. 2009;42:705–10. - PubMed
    1. Monga P, Sharma V, Kumar S. Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using different coronal restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2009;12:154–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bassir MM, Labibzadeh A, Mollaverdi F. The effect of amount of lost tooth structure and restorative technique on fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars. J Conserv Dent. 2013;16:413–7. - PMC - PubMed