Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of Various Retrofilling Materials Using Stereomicroscope: An In Vitro Study
H Madhu1, Baby James2, S Ashok1, Saud M Orfali3, M Dalati4, Saleh Al-Klayb5
1 Reader, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Amritha School of Dental Sciences, Kochi, Kerala, India
2 Professor, Department of conservative dentistry and Endodontics, Pushpagiri College of Dental Sciences, Thiruvalla, Kerala, India
3 Consultant Endodontist, King Saud Medical City and Associate Clinical Professor, Riyadh Dental College, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4 Consultant Orthodontist and Restorative Dentist, Springs Dental Care, New Road Side, Horsforth, Leeds, LS18 4QD, UK
5 Post Graduate Resident, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Reader, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Amritha School of Dental Sciences, Kochi, Kerala, India
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Aim : To study the sealing ability of Ketac silver, Ketac molar, Super- EBA, and intermediate restorative material (IRM) when used as retrograde filling materials using a dye penetration technique.
Materials and Methods : A total of 80 freshly extracted, single rooted, permanent maxillary central, and lateral incisors were selected for the study. The cleaning and shaping of the root canals were done and then obturated with gutta-percha using AH plus as root canal sealer. Apical root resection was performed. All the roots involved in this study were randomly divided into 4 groups (20 each) and retrofilled using Ketac silver (Group I), Ketac molar (Group II), Super-EBA (Group III), and IRM (Group IV). The roots were then sectioned buccolingually and were evaluated by a stereomicroscope for dye penetration at restorative-tooth interface to record the microleakage status of each group. The data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using analyses of variance test and post-hoc test of Scheffe.
Results: There was statistically significant difference in the mean dye penetration values between Group III (Super-EBA) when compared to Groups IV and I (IRM and Ketac Silver). Although Group III (Super-EBA) was better than Group II (Ketac Molar), there was no significant difference statistically between the groups.
Conclusion: Super-EBA and Ketac Molar has the superior sealing ability when compared to Ketac silver and IRM. Although Super- EBA demonstrated a better apical sealing ability compared to Ketac Molar, the difference between the materials was not statistically significant.