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
. 2019 Sep-Oct;22(5):420-424.
doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_227_19. Epub 2020 Aug 4.

A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using four different intraorifice barriers: An in vitro study

Parul Chauhan  1 , Ashima Garg  1 , Rakesh Mittal  1 , Hemashi Kumar  1
Affiliations

A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using four different intraorifice barriers: An in vitro study

Parul Chauhan et al. J Conserv Dent. 2019 Sep-Oct.

Erratum in

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using four intraorifice barriers.

Materials and methods: Fifty extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars were selected, decoronated, and prepared with rotary Protaper universal system and obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. Samples were divided into five groups (n = 10) on the basis of intraorifice barrier material used. Group 1: Biodentine, Group 2: Conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), Group 3: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), Group 4: Nanohybrid composite, Group 5: No barrier (control).Except for control specimens, coronal 3-mm gutta-percha was removed and filled with different intraorifice barrier materials in respective groups. Fracture resistance of specimens was tested using universal testing machine.

Statistical analysis used: One-way analysis of variance test and Post hoc Tukey's test.

Results: Mean fracture resistance of all experimental groups (with intraorifice barriers placed) were higher than control group (no intraorifice barrier placed). Biodentine showed the highest mean fracture resistance while RMGIC showed the least and the difference between their mean fracture resistance was statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference among other experimental groups.

Conclusion: Placement of intraorifice barriers in endodontically treated teeth can significantly increase fracture resistance and this increase in fracture resistance is material dependent.

Keywords: Biodentine; conventional glass ionomer cement; intraorifice barrier; nanohybrid composite; resin-modified glass ionomer cement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Samples of extracted teeth. (b) Decoronated samples. (c) Samples mounted in acrylic resin. (d) Sample mounted on universal testing machine
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Armamentarium. (b) Universal testing machine
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Tang W, Wu Y, Smales RJ. Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod. 2010;36:609–17. - PubMed
    1. Kim HC, Lee MH, Yum J, Versluis A, Lee CJ, Kim BM. Potential relationship between design of nickel-titanium rotary instruments and vertical root fracture. J Endod. 2010;36:1195–9. - PubMed
    1. Zaparolli D, Saquy PC, Cruz-Filho AM. Effect of sodium hypochlorite and EDTA irrigation, individually and in alternation, on dentin microhardness at the furcation area of mandibular molars. Braz Dent J. 2012;23:654–8. - PubMed
    1. Nagas E, Uyanik O, Altundasar E, Durmaz V, Cehreli ZC, Vallittu PK, et al. Effect of different intraorifice barriers on the fracture resistance of roots obturated with Resilon or gutta-percha. J Endod. 2010;36:1061–3. - PubMed
    1. Roghanizad N, Jones JJ. Evaluation of coronal microleakage after endodontic treatment. J Endod. 1996;22:471–3. - PubMed