Effects of Different Disinfection Methods on Microleakage of Giomer Restorations

Comparative evaluation on the effect of different cavity disinfectant nano gels; Chlorohexidine, Propolis, Liquorice versus Diode Laser in terms of composite microleakage (comparative in vitro study)

INTRODUCTION

The application of different cavity disinfectants is an essential step that eliminates bacteria after cavity preparation. However, some of these materials may affect restoration sealing ability.

AIM

This study aimed to assess the degree of microleakage at the tooth restoration interface after using different nano prepared cavity disinfectants versus Diode Laser.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three disinfectants were prepared on the nanoscale; Propolis, Liquorice and Chlorhexidine. A total of 40 extracted premolars with standard class V cavities were prepared on the facial surface. Teeth were divided into five groups according to the applied cavity disinfection protocol; no treatment, Chloehexidine, Propolis, Liquorice, and Diode Laser. After application of composite resin restoration, all teeth were subjected to thermocycling, afterwords the degree of microleakage was measured in micrometers. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, followed by Bonferroni's and Tukey's post hoc test.

RESULTS

The highest mean microlekage value was recorded in no treatment group, followed by Liquorice, Propolis. While Diode Laser group showed the lowest degree of microleakage.

CONCLUSION

Diode Laser cavity disinfectant has no negative effect on the restoration sealing ability. Nano prepared Propolis showed comparative results to nanoChloehexidine as both had low degree of microleakage.

An in vitro evaluation of microleakage of resin based composites bonded to chlorhexidine-pretreated dentin by different protocols of a universal adhesive system

Purpose

This study compared microleakage of different resin based composite (RBC) materials bonded to dentin, after chlorhexidine (CHX) application, by different adhesion protocols of a universal adhesive system.

Methods

Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 40 premolar teeth. The “etch-and-rinse” technique of a universal bond adhesive system (Single Bond Universal Adhesive) was used on buccal preparations, while the “self-etch” protocol was used on the lingual surfaces. Two RBCs, one bulk fill (Filtek Bulk Fill [FBF]) and one conventional (Filtek Z350 XT [Z350XT]), were used. Teeth were divided into two groups of 20 teeth each, 10 per each RBC (n = 10): (1) control; and (2) pretreatment with 2% CHX. For FBF groups, teeth were restored with a single increment; however, for Z350XT, a layering technique was used. Teeth were aged by thermo-cycling and prepared for microleakage testing. Dye penetration was evaluated and scored from 0 to 4. Data were analyzed at a significance level of P < 0.05.

Results

The highest microleakage mean scores were found in the control group of the etched margins for both RBCs (2.80 ± 1.033 FBF and 2.10 ± 1.370 Z350XT). The CHX-pretreated group showed significantly lower microleakage than the control for FBF only (P = 0.008). No significant difference was found between groups for the “self-etch” protocol (χ² = 0.884, P = 0.08). No significant differences were found between FBF and Z350XT in all study groups (P > 0.2).

Conclusions

When the “self-etch” protocol of the universal adhesive system was used, dentin microleakage was not affected by CHX-pretreatment when teeth were restored with bulk fill or conventional RBCs. In the “etch-and-rinse” protocol, CHX application improved the marginal seal before restoration with bulk fill material. However, in the absence of CHX, the “etch-and-rinse” protocol negatively affected marginal integrity.

Microtensile Bond Strength, Marginal Leakage, and Antibacterial Effect of Bulk Fill Resin Composite with Alkaline Fillers versus Incremental Nanohybrid Composite Resin

Objective  This study aimed to investigate the microtensile bond strength (µTBS), microleakage, and antibacterial effect of bulk fill resin composite with alkaline fillers (alkasite) (alkaline fillers such as barium aluminum silicate glass and ytterbium trifluoride) in comparison to incremental nanohybrid resin composite.

Materials and Methods  µTBS was evaluated by using 30 human mandibular molars. Teeth were randomly divided into three groups (C): nanohybrid resin composite (C0), self-cured alkasite (C1), and dual-cured alkasite (C2). Each group was subdivided into two subgroups according to the bulk thickness: 4 mm (T1) and 6 mm (T2). The occlusal enamel of teeth was removed and the resin composite was applied to a flat dentin surface. Then, teeth were sectioned into beams to be tested under tension. For microleakage testing, mesio-occlusal class II cavities were prepared in 15 molars and divided into three groups as mentioned before. Following this, cavities were restored, thermocycled, immersed in a dye, sectioned mesiodistally, and then dye penetration was assessed. The antibacterial effect of both tested materials was evaluated using agar disc diffusion and broth dilution methods against chlorhexidine as a control positive group.

Results There was no significant difference in µTBS between all tested groups. Bulk fill self-cured alkasite showed the lowest microleakage value followed by bulk fill dual-cured alkasite and incremental nanohybrid resin composite, respectively. Also, cervical microleakage showed significantly higher mean value than the occlusal one. The antibacterial effect of alkasite was less than chlorhexidine. Alkasite showed maximum broth clarity at lowest tested bacterial concentration.

Conclusion  Resin composite with alkaline fillers was characterized by good µTBS and marginal integrity with weak antibacterial effect.