Table 2.
Main results of the included studies.
| Study | Experimental groups | Intraorifice barrier depth | Control groups | Main results of the included studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roghanizad | Cavit (3M ESPE), TERM (Dentsply), Amalgam (Dentsply) | 3 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish and sticky wax) | A 3 mm intraorifice barrier of Amalgam prevented leakage in 96.4% of the cases, and it was significantly better than Cavit and TERM. |
| Yavari | Flow-It (Pentron), GC Gold Label LC (GC America), ProRoot MTA (Dentsply) | 3 mm | 10 positive (no barrier) and 10 negative controls (nail varnish and sticky wax) | A 3 mm intraorifice barrier of ProRoot MTA was statistically superior to GIC or composite resin to minimize recontamination of the remaining gutta-percha. |
| Malik | Fuji II GIC (GC America), ProRoot MTA (Dentsply) | 4 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish and sticky wax) | A 4 mm intracanal plug of ProRoot MTA exhibited a lower mean leakage than Fuji II GIC, and it may be used to minimize microleakage in endodontically treated teeth. |
| Lee | ProRoot MTA (Dentsply), EndoCem Zr (Maruchi), MTA Angelus (Angelus), LuxaCore (DMG), Fuji II LC (GC America), ZPC Elite (GC America) | 3 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | All the materials allowed infiltration of dye. However, a 3 mm intraorifice barrier of ProRoot MTA showed significantly smaller penetration and less variation than the other materials. |
| Alikhani | Fuji II LC (GC America) | 1, 2, and 3 mm | None | The findings indicated that a 3 mm depth of Fuji II LC intraorifice barrier showed the highest preventive effect on coronal microleakage in endodontically treated teeth. |
| Shindo | Protect Liner F (Kuraray), Panavia F (Kuraray), DC Core light-cured (Kuraray), DC Core chemically cured (Kuraray), Super EBA (Bosworth), Ketac (3M ESPE) | 4 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | A 4 mm intraorifice barrier of Panavia Liner F and Panavia F had the highest sealing ability than the other materials. |
| Parekh | Fuji II LC (GC America), Tetric N-Flow (Ivoclar Vivadent), Fuji II LC+Tetric N-Flow | 3.5 mm | 5 positive controls (no barrier) | Tetric N-Flow has shown more leakage than Fuji II LC+Tetric N-Flow and Fuji II LC groups when used as intraorifice barriers. |
| Bhullar | Biodentine (Septodont), Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent), Fuji IX GIC (GC America) | 3 mm | 10 positive (no barrier) and 10 negative controls (nail varnish) | The present study concluded that intraorifice barrier placement provides a better coronal seal and prevents microleakage. Biodentine placed at a 3 mm depth was statistically superior to the other groups. |
| Pisano | Cavit (3M ESPE), IRM (Dentsply), Super EBA (Bosworth) | 3.5 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | A 3.5 mm intraorifice barrier of Cavit leaked the least when compared to the other included materials. |
| Zakizadeh | Amalgam, Fuji Plus LC (GC America), Geristore (DenMat), ProRoot MTA (Dentsply) | 2 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (sticky wax) | A 2 mm intraorifice barrier of Fuji Plus might be an effective barrier against saliva contamination for a limited time. |
| Yavari | ProRoot MTA (Dentsply), Amalgam, Filtek Flow (3M ESPE), CEM cement (BioniqueDent) | 3 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | A 2 mm intraorifice barrier of MTA and CEM cement are more effective than Amalgam or composite resin in preventing saliva leakage in endodontically treated teeth. |
| Tselnik | Gray MTA, white MTA, Fuji II LC (GC America) | 3 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (epoxy resin) | Intraorifice barriers of MTA and Fuji II LC in a 3 mm depth provided an acceptable coronal seal for up to 90 days in vitro. |
| Wolcott | Ketac-Bond (3M ESPE), Vitrebond (3M ESPE), trial glass ionomer (GC America) | 2 and 3 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (epoxy resin) | The intraorifice seal provided by the Vitrebond was significantly better than the seal in teeth without intraorifice barriers (p < 0.05). |
| Barrieshi-Nusair | ProRoot MTA (Dentsply), glass ionomer cement | 4 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (sticky wax) | Mineral trioxide aggregate, when placed coronally in 4 mm thickness over gutta-percha, seals the canal content significantly more than glass ionomer does. |
| Jenkins | Cavit (3M ESPE), ProRoot MTA (Dentsply), Tetric (Ivoclar Vivadent) | 1, 2, 3, and 4 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | The results of this study indicated that, at all depths, Tetric demonstrated a significantly better seal than either MTA or Cavit. |
| Sauáia | Cavit (3M ESPE), Vitremer LC (GC America), Flow-It (Pentron) | 3 mm | 10 positive (no barrier) and 10 negative controls (nail varnish) | The results showed that Cavit sealed significantly better than Vitremer and Flow-It when used as intraorifice filling materials at a 3 mm depth. |
| Divya | Composite resin, gray MTA, white MTA, glass ionomer cement | 4 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | None of the materials prevented the microleakage completely. However, the groups restored with MTA showed significantly better results in preventing microleakage than the other groups. |
| Ramezanali | MTA Angelus (Angelus), CEM cement (BioniqueDent), Biodentine (Septodont) | 3 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | There were no statistical differences between the experimental groups. However, CEM cement at 3 mm depth exhibited the least microleakage. CEM cement, Biodentine, and MTA effectively provide an efficient seal when used as intraorifice barriers in endodontically treated teeth. |
| Galvan | Amalgambond Plus with PMMA powder (Parkell), C&B Metabond with PMMA powder (Parkell), Æliteflo LV composite (BISCO), Palfique translucent composite (Tokuyama), IRM (Dentsply) | Pulpal floor and 3 mm intraorifice depth | 1 positive (no barrier) and 1 negative control (cyanoacrylate) | All the four adhesive resins effectively decreased coronal microleakage, with Amalgambond producing the best seal at all times. IRM, however, demonstrated extensive leakage at 1 and 3 months. |
| Wells | Principle cement (Dentsply) and C&B Metabond (Parkell) | Pulpal floor and 2 mm intraorifice depth | 1 positive (no barrier) and 1 negative control (nail varnish) | The seal provided by C&B Metabond was superior to the seals produced by principle. However, by 1 week, there were no significant differences among the seals. |
| Maloney | Fuji Triage (GC America) | 1 and 2 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | Teeth with Fuji Triage intracoronal barriers leaked significantly less than teeth without barriers. There was no significant difference between the 1 and 2 mm barriers. However, there was a trend towards less fluid movement when a thicker barrier was placed. |
| Jack | Resilon and Epiphany (Resilon Research), Fuji Triage (GC America) | 2 mm | 2 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | The placement of a 2 mm Triage glass ionomer intraorifice barrier after gutta-percha obturation resulted in significantly more resistance to fluid movement than the other groups. |
| John | Fuji Triage (GC America), gray MTA, white MTA | 2 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | No statistically significant difference in fluid flow leakage was found between the experimental groups. Both Fuji Triage and MTA provide superior intraorifice seal than the control group. |
| Bayram | CoroSeal (Ivoclar Vivadent), Ketac Molar Easymix (3M ESPE), Filtek Flow (3M ESPE), Polycarboxylate cement | 2 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | CoroSeal at a 2 mm intraorifice depth was the most effective material among the other groups in reducing the coronal leakage when compared to flowable composite, fissure sealant, and polycarboxylate cement. |
| Mohammadi | Gray MTA, white MTA, principle cement (Dentsply) | 3 mm | 3 positive (no barrier) and 3 negative controls (epoxy resin) | The results indicated that MTA, when placed coronally in 2 mm thickness over gutta-percha, significantly reduced the bacterial penetration. |
| Fathi | Ketac Cem (3M ESPE), Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray), Maxcem (Kerr) | 2 mm | 5 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (inoculated with sterile BHI broth) | There was no statistically significant difference in the bacterial penetration of Ketac-Cem, Clearfil Protect Bond/Clearfil AP-X, and Maxcem as intracoronal barriers by 120 days. |
| Valadares | Cavit (3M ESPE) | 2 and 3 mm | 25 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (cyanoacrylate) | Applying a 3 mm intraorifice barrier of Cavit practically eliminated the microleakage from E. faecalis in the apical third of the root canal system. |
| Rashmi | ProRoot MTA (Dentsply), Fuji II LC (GC America), Flows-rite (PulpDent) | 3 mm | 20 positive (no barrier) and 20 negative controls (epoxy resin) | Based on this study, it can be concluded that 3 mm of Fuji II LC provided a better intraorifice seal than MTA and flowable resin composite. |
| Celik | Ketac Molar Easymix (3M ESPE), Durelon (3M ESPE), Vitrebond (3M ESPE), Filtek Flow (3M ESPE) | 1 mm | 15 positive (no barrier) and 5 negative controls (nail varnish) | 1 mm intraorifice barrier of Ketac Molar Easymix demonstrated statistically lower leakage than the flowable resin composite group. |
| Bailón-Sanchéz | ProRoot MTA (Dentsply), Cavit (3M ESPE), Tetric EvoFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent) | 4 mm | 6 positive (no barrier) and 6 negative controls (nail varnish) | ProRoot MTA, Cavit, and Tetric EvoFlow demonstrated similar leakage values when used as an intraorifice barrier at a 4 mm depth. |