Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |


Login  | Users Online: 137  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

Year : 2011  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 21-26

Comparing the reinforcing effects of a resin modified glassionomer cement, Flowable compomer, and Flowable composite in the restoration of calcium hydroxide-treated immature roots in vitro

Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, DAPMRV Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, India

Correspondence Address:
S Prathibha Rani
Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, No. 5 Byrasandra Main Road, Ist Block East, Jayanagar, Bangalore
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.79298

Rights and Permissions

One hundred and sixty human permanent central incisors were enlarged to a 120 file size after crown removal procedure to simulate immature teeth. The root canals were filled with calcium hydroxide and stored for 15 days (phase I), 30 days (phase II), 90 days (phase III), and 180 days (Phase IV). At the end of these selected time periods, calcium hydroxide was cleaned off the root canals of forty teeth that were randomly selected and obturated with gutta-percha points in the apical 2 mm of the root canals with a sealer. The specimens were further equally divided into four groups. Unrestored Group I served as control and the root canals of teeth in the other three group specimens were reinforced with resin modified glassionomer cement (RMGIC) (Group II), Flowable Compomer (Group III), and Flowable Composite (Group IV), respectively, using a translucent curing post. All specimens were subjected to compressive force using an Instron Testing machine, until fracture occurred. All the materials evaluated substantially reinforced the root specimens compared to the control. At the end of 180 days, Flowable composites showed maximum reinforcement compared to the other groups; however, no significant differences were found between the reinforcement capabilities of Flowable Compomer and RMGIC.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded285    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal