Rafael rodrigues moraes

Aim  To evaluate marginal seal, water sorption, solubility and loss of mass after brushing of several temporary filling materials.Methodology  For marginal seal, Class I cavities, including endodontic access preparations, were made in human molar teeth and restored using one or other of several temporary filling materials (n = 10): zinc oxide/calcium sulphate-based cement (Cavit, 3M,ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), zinc oxide/eugenol cement (IRM, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA), glass ionomer cement (Vidrion R, SSWhite, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil) or a dimethacrylate-based filling (Bioplic, Biodinâmica, Londrina, PR, Brazil). Dye penetration was assessed after thermocycling and immersion in 0.5% basic fuchsine solution. For water sorption, solubility and loss of mass analyses, disc-shaped specimens were made. Water sorption and solubility were evaluated by mass alteration after storage in distilled water for 7 days (n = 7). Loss of mass was calculated based on the difference of mass after abrasion with a toothbrush (n = 5), and surfaces were analysed by SEM. Data of water sorption, solubility and loss of mass were submitted to anova and Tukey’s test, and marginal sealing data to Kruskal–Wallis test (P < 0.05).Results  Statistically significant differences were observed for marginal sealing (P < 0.0001), water sorption (P < 0.01), solubility (P < 0.01) and loss of mass (P < 0.05). Bioplic had the best marginal seal. Cavit had the greatest water sorption and solubility. Vidrion R and Bioplic had the lowest solubility. Loss of mass after brushing was higher for Cavit, followed by Bioplic, IRM and Vidrion R. Cavit and Vidrion R were worn aggressively by brushing.Conclusions  The resin-based temporary filling Bioplic produced the best marginal seal, and was associated with the lowest water sorption, solubility and loss of mass.