IADR Abstract Archives
The Effect of Two Traditional Polyacrylic Acid Conditioner and 2% Chlorhexidine Digluconate on the Cavo-surface Microleakage of GI Restorations
Objectives: A lack of appropriate adhesiveness is one of the most important problems in the restorative dentistry today and the main cause for microleakage. Glass ionomer restorative material has the ability to form a double bond with the remaining tooth substance which increases adhesion and decreases microleakage .Application of conditioner over the cavity walls as a pretreatment improves the adhesion quality .Over the years an attempt to assess the most effectiveness type of conditioner, its concentration or duration of application was done. The aim of this study was to assess the microleakage of GI restorative material following application of 20% polyacrylic acid, 10% polyacrylic acid and 2% chlorhexidine digluconate in class V cavities.
Methods: Two class V preparation were made for each tooth on the buccal and on the lingual surfaces (3x3.5x1.8mm) of twenty four extracted human molars .The gingival wall was below the CEJ and occlusal wall above the CEJ. The teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups. In group 1 cavity walls were treated with 20% polyacrylic acid for 10 sec in comparison to 10% polyacrylic acid treatment for 20 sec. In group 2 cavity walls were treated with10% polyacrylic for 10 sec in comparison to cavity cleanser (2% Chlorhexidine digluconate) which was applied for 20 sec. The cavo-surface microleakage was evaluated using a light – reflecting stereomicroscope at 18 x magnifications and staining penetration test (0.5% basic fuchsine).
Results: 2%chlorhexidine digluconate was found as efficient as the other conditioner materials. No statistically significant differences was found between the three types of conditioners for the various tooth surfaces. Die penetration was statistically significant greater at dentin than at enamel for all conditioners in G1 and G2 (P<0.001).
Conclusions: 2% chlorhexidine digluconate with its known added advantage can be used as a pretreatment conditioner in GI restorations.
Methods: Two class V preparation were made for each tooth on the buccal and on the lingual surfaces (3x3.5x1.8mm) of twenty four extracted human molars .The gingival wall was below the CEJ and occlusal wall above the CEJ. The teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups. In group 1 cavity walls were treated with 20% polyacrylic acid for 10 sec in comparison to 10% polyacrylic acid treatment for 20 sec. In group 2 cavity walls were treated with10% polyacrylic for 10 sec in comparison to cavity cleanser (2% Chlorhexidine digluconate) which was applied for 20 sec. The cavo-surface microleakage was evaluated using a light – reflecting stereomicroscope at 18 x magnifications and staining penetration test (0.5% basic fuchsine).
Results: 2%chlorhexidine digluconate was found as efficient as the other conditioner materials. No statistically significant differences was found between the three types of conditioners for the various tooth surfaces. Die penetration was statistically significant greater at dentin than at enamel for all conditioners in G1 and G2 (P<0.001).
Conclusions: 2% chlorhexidine digluconate with its known added advantage can be used as a pretreatment conditioner in GI restorations.