ORAL HEALTH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE PROGRAM
View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
spacer
Title No Statistical Difference in Temporary Restorative Material in Preventing Bacterial Microleakage Following Endodontic Treatment Between Cavit and IRM
Clinical Question In patients requiring endodontic treatment, will Cavit be a more successful temporary restorative material preventing bacterial microleakage compared to Intermediate Restorative Material (IRM)?
Clinical Bottom Line For patients requiring endodontic treatment, Cavit has no significant difference in preventing bacterial microleakage compared to IRM. This is based on a single randomized controlled trial that compared Cavit, IRM and TERM and concluded that Cavit is significantly better than TERM at creating a bacteria-free seal.
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 9198425Beach/199651 endodontically treated teeth randomly sealed using Cavit, IRM, or TERMRandomized Controlled Trial
Key resultsFrom the 51 cultured samples, 0 of 19 Cavit-sealed teeth displayed positive growth, whereas 1 of 18 IRM-sealed teeth and 4 of 14 TERM-sealed teeth showed positive growth. Cavit was significantly better than TERM (p <0.05) in sealing endodontic access preparations.
Evidence Search (("Dental Restoration, Temporary"[Mesh] AND "Cavit"[Supplementary Concept]) AND "IRM cement"[Supplementary Concept]) AND "Dental Leakage"[Mesh]
Comments on
The Evidence
The study was a randomized controlled trial that excluded any teeth with fractures or large restorations that could permit leakage, unopposed teeth, and teeth opposing complete dentures. Each of the 51 samples was sealed with 4 mm of a randomly-assigned temporary restorative material. The temporary filling was removed three weeks later under sterile conditions, sampled using pre-reduced anaerobically sterilized (PRAS) transport media, and plated for aerobic and anaerobic growth.
Applicability This study was performed in vivo and can be applied to patients requiring endodontic treatment. Bacteria that were isolated from positive cultures are all evident in endodontic infections. Although the study excluded teeth with large restorations that may permit leakage, restored teeth with good marginal integrity were included since it is rare to endodontically treat unrestored teeth. Furthermore, this study required 4 mm of filling material, which is currently the recommended thickness for Cavit.
Specialty/Discipline (Endodontics) (General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry)
Keywords microleakage, Cavit, IRM, temporary restorative material, IRM, TERM
ID# 2286
Date of submission: 04/25/2012spacer
E-mail acap@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Justin Acap
Co-author(s)
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Mary Norma Partida, DDS, MPH
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail partidam@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
spacer
Comments on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS' and/or FACULTY COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs)
post a comment
None available
spacer

Return to Found CATs list