مقارنة التسرب الحفافي بين مادتي ترميم مؤقت ضوئية التصلب و تقليدية في حفر مدخل معقدة في سياق المعالجة اللبية : دراسة مخبرية

Abstract EN

Study objective: The comparison of the marginal leakage around two temporary restorative materials (Quicks Flow, IRM) in-vitro when placed adjacent to permanent restorations (composite) in complex endodontic access cavities using the Dye Penetration methode.

Materials and methods: After preparing class 2 cavities (occlocial and proximal) and being restored by light cured composite, in 28 lower premolars divided randomly into two groups 14 for each, then the endodontic access cavities were prepared through the composite in the occlocial side, the temporary restorative materials Quicks Flow and IRM (depth of 4 mm each) were then applied according to the manufacturer's instructions.

After 100 water cycles and immersing in 2% methylene blue, all teeth were sectioned mesio-distally to the long access of the tooth in order to evaluate dye penetration under 20X magnification along 2 interfaces 'a' and 'b' (tooth-temporary restoration and temporary restoration-primary restoration), respectively, according to a four-unit-scale (0-1-2-3).

Data were collected and statistically analyzed by SPSS version 24 and using Mann-Whitney Test.

P-value of 0.05 was taken as statistically significant level.

Results: The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the marginal leakage in the tooth-temporary restoration surface (surface a) between the Quicks Flow group and the IRM group, (P Value = 0.981 > 0.05).

However, it was noticed that there was a statistically significant difference in the marginal leakage in the temporary restoration-composite surface (surface b) between IRM group and Quicks Flow (P Value = 0.001 < 0.05) and this significant difference is in favor of Quicks Flow group.

Conclusion: We conclude from the results that there are no differences in the coronal sealing ability between Quicks Flow and IRM when applied in contact with dental tissues, but the sealing ability of Quicks Flow is better than IRM when applied in contact with composite material.