• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.115-124
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to measure the polymerization shrinkage and hygroscopic expansion of resin-based temporary filling materials and to evaluate microleakage at the interface between the materials and cavity wall. Five resin-based temporary filing materials were investigated: Fermit (Vivadent), Quicks (Dentkist), Provifil (Promedica), Spacer (Vericom), Clip (Voco). Caviton (GC) was also included for comparison. Polymerization shrinkage of five resin-based temporary filling materials was measured using the bonded disc method. For the measurement of hygroscopic expansion, the discs of six cured temporary filling materials were immersed in saline and a LVDT displacement sensor was used to measure the expansion for 7 days. For estimating of microleakage, Class I cavities were prepared on 120 extracted human molars and randomly assigned to 6 groups of 20 each. The cavities in each group were filled with six temporary filling materials. All specimens were submitted to 1000 thermocycles, with temperature varying from $5^{\circ}C/55^{\circ}C$. Microleakage was determined using a dye penetration test. The results were as follows: 1. Fermit had significantly less polymerization shrinkage than the other resin-based temporary fill ing materials. Fermit (0.22%) < Spacer (0.38%) < Quicks (0.64%), Provifil (0.67%), Clip (0.67%) 2. Resin-based temporary filling materials showed 0.43-1.1% expansion in 7 days. 3. Fermit showed the greatest leakage, while Quicks exhibited the least leakage. 4. There are no correlation between polymerization shrinkage or hygroscopic expansion and microleakage of resin-based temporary filling materials.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.36 no.5
• /
• pp.419-424
• /
• 2011

Objectives: This study was aimed to determine the effects of temporary sealing materials on microtensile bond strength between resin-coated dentin and resin inlay and to compare the bonding effectiveness of delayed dentin sealing and that of immediate dentin sealing. Materials and Methods: The teeth were divided into 4 groups: group 1, specimens were prepared using delayed dentin sealing after temporary sealing with zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE); group 2, specimens were prepared using immediate dentin sealing and ZOE sealing; group 3, specimens were prepared using immediate dentin sealing and Dycal (Dentsply) sealing; group 4, specimens were prepared using immediately sealed, and then temporarily sealed with a resin-based temporary sealing material. After removing the temporary sealing material, we applied resin adhesive and light-cured. Then the resin inlays were applied and bonded to the cavity with a resin-based cement. The microtensile bond strength of the sectioned specimens were measured with a micro-tensile tester (Bisco Inc.). Significance between the specimen groups were tested by means of one-way ANOVA and multiple Duncan's test. Results: Group 1 showed the lowest bond strength, and group 4 showed the highest bond strength (p < 0.01). When temporary sealing was performed with ZOE, immediate dentin sealing showed a higher bonding strength than delayed dentin sealing (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Based on these results, immediate dentin sealing is more recommended than delayed dentin sealing in bonding a resin inlay to dentin. Also, resin-based temporary sealing materials have shown the best result.