In vitro study to compare the coronal microleakage of Tempit UltraF, Tempit, IRM, and Cavit by using the fluid transport model.

An adequate coronal seal is critical for the success of root canal therapy. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the coronal microleakage of 4 temporary filling materials used to seal the access cavity in root canal treated teeth. Standardized access cavities were prepared in 55 extracted human, single canal teeth. They were instrumented by using a crown-down method to a size 45 file. The smear layer was removed with a 1-minute soak with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid followed by a 10-minute soak with 5.25% NaOCl and dried with paper points. All roots were obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer by using the continuous wave of condensation technique. The teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups of 10 teeth, with the remaining teeth serving as positive and negative controls. The access openings of the teeth in the experimental groups were filled with 4 mm of Cavit, IRM, Tempit, or Tempit-Ultra-F. All teeth were stored in 100% humidity at 37 degrees for 10 days, allowing sealer to set before testing. After thermocycling for 500 cycles (5 degrees C-55 degrees C), microleakage was measured by using the fluid transport model at 10 psi. All materials tested leaked. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U analysis indicated significantly less leakage (P < .05) with Tempit UltraF compared with Cavit and IRM. There were no statistically significant differences between Tempit Ultra-F and Tempit or between Cavit, IRM, and Tempit.