Evaluation of Different Resin-Based Barriers in Reducing Microleakage in Restoratively Compromised Posterior Teeth During Rubber Dam Isolation: An Ex Vivo Study
Carolina Becerra, DDS1*, Albert F. McMullen III, DDS, FACD2, Joon Koh, DMD1, Thomas E. Lallier, PhD3
1Postgraduate Endodontic Resident, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (LSUHSC), USA.
2Department Head and Postgraduate Director, Endodontics, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (LSUHSC), USA.
3Professor, Cell Biology and Anatomy Coordinator for Student Research, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (LSUHSC), USA.
*Corresponding Author: Carolina Becerra, DDS; Postgraduate Endodontic Resident, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (LSUHSC), USA.
https://doi.org/10.58624/SVOADE.2025.06.015
Received: May 12, 2025
Published: June 04, 2025
Citation: Becerra C, McMullen III AF, Koh J, Lallier TE. Evaluation of Different Resin-Based Barriers in Reducing Microleakage in Restoratively Compromised Posterior Teeth During Rubber Dam Isolation: An Ex Vivo Study. SVOA Dentistry 2025, 6:3, 90-94. doi: 10.58624/SVOADE.2025.06.015
Abstract
Introduction: The rubber dam has been a standard in endodontic practice for over 140 years, providing critical isolation to prevent microbial contamination during root canal therapy. However, studies indicate that microleakage between the rubber dam and tooth structure may still occur, potentially leading to bacterial infiltration. Various resin-based barriers have been introduced to enhance isolation and minimize leakage. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of four resin-based barriers in reducing microleakage during endodontic procedures.
Methods: Forty extracted human mandibular molars were selected, stored in distilled water, and standardized for experimental conditions. Standard endodontic access was created, and the mesiobuccal cusp was removed to simulate compromised tooth structure. Teeth were mounted in plaster, hydrated for two hours, and isolated using a rubber dam and clamps. Four resin-based barriers— J-Temp, Kool-Dam, Liquid Dam, and OpalDam —were applied according to manufacturer instructions. Methylene blue dye was introduced into the pulp chamber and activated three times with ultrasonic tips over 90 minutes. Following dye exposure, barriers were removed, and dye penetration was assessed under a Zumax microscope. ImageJ software was used to quantify dye penetration, and statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey’s test (significance level, p<0.05).
Results: All resin-based barriers exhibited varying degrees of microleakage. J-Temp demonstrated significantly greater dye penetration (mean leakage: 70.5%) compared to Kool-Dam (15.4%), Liquid Dam (12.8%), and OpalDam (15.2%) (p<0.05). No significant difference in leakage was observed among Kool-Dam, Liquid Dam, and OpalDam (p=0.9). Liquid Dam exhibited the lowest mean leakage and least variance.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this ex vivo study, Kool-Dam, Liquid Dam, and OpalDam demonstrated superior sealing ability compared to J-Temp in reducing microleakage. When used alongside rubber dam isolation, these barriers contribute to maintaining an aseptic field during endodontic treatment, potentially improving treatment outcomes.
Keywords: Rubber Dam, Resin-Based Barrier, Microleakage, Endodontics, Root Canal Therapy
