<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2d1 20170631//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="1.0" article-type="healthcare" lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">IJCRR</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">I Journ Cur Res Re</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>International Journal of Current Research and Review</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="pubmed">I Journ Cur Res Re</abbrev-journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">2231-2196</issn><issn pub-type="opub">0975-5241</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Radiance Research Academy</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">4667</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi"/><article-id pub-id-type="doi-url"> https://doi.org/10.31782/IJCRR.2021.13638</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>&#13;
	Comparative Analysis of the Properties of Temporary Cement – An In Vitro Study&#13;
&#13;
&#13;
&#13;
	 &#13;
&#13;
&#13;
&#13;
	 &#13;
&#13;
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Panikkar</surname><given-names>Priyanka</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Mandke</surname><given-names>Lalitagauri</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Kulkarni</surname><given-names>Radhika Navare</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Vandekar</surname><given-names>Mansi</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Durairaj</surname><given-names>Preethi</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Pawar</surname><given-names>Hitesh</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>20</day><month>03</month><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>)</volume><issue/><fpage>178</fpage><lpage>182</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>This article is copyright of Popeye Publishing, 2009</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2009</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) Licence. You may share and adapt the material, but must give appropriate credit to the source, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made.</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>&#13;
	Introduction: Microbial eradication from the pulpal spaces plays a pivotal role in the success of endodontic treatment. The intricate internal tooth anatomy challenges the clinician at every instance - be it the cleaning, shaping, or complete restoration of the root canal system. Aim: To assess and compare sealing ability, water sorption and solubility of temporary restorative materials. Material and Method: Thirty extracted premolars were endodontically treated and restored with temporary restorations, 10 teeth in each group. The groups were - Cavit G, Zinconol, Coltosol F. Teeth were thermocycled and sectioned. Microleakage was tested with Methylene blue dye under stereomicroscope. For solubility and sorption analysis, disc-shaped specimens (10 each) were prepared and restored with temporary cements and divided into three groups, depending on the cement used. Specimens were stored in desiccator; dry mass (m1) was obtained. After storing in distilled water, mass after saturation (m2) and thereafter constant dry mass was obtained (m3). Water sorption and solubility was determined by prescribed formulas. Kruskal Wallis and Dunn’s Post-hoc test were used for microleakage. For water sorption and solubility Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test, ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test were used. Result: Coltosol exhibited least microleakage followed by Cavit and Zinconol. Cavit exhibited maximum sorption and solubility, followed by Coltosol and Zinconol. Conclusion: Coltosol exhibited the least amount of microleakage compared to Cavit and Zinconol. It also demonstrated intermediate level of sorption and solubility. Hence it can be recommended for use as a temporary restorative material during endodontic treatment.&#13;
&#13;
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Laboratory research</kwd><kwd> Sealing ability</kwd><kwd> Solubility</kwd><kwd> Water sorption</kwd><kwd> Temporary cement</kwd><kwd> Restoration</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front></article>
