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).

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Maryam Mohamed ElMansy, Silvia Sabry Tawfik Tadros, Reham Sayed Saleh, Rehab Abdelmonem, Hala El Menoufy, Naglaa Shawky
{"title":"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).","authors":"Maryam Mohamed ElMansy, Silvia Sabry Tawfik Tadros, Reham Sayed Saleh, Rehab Abdelmonem, Hala El Menoufy, Naglaa Shawky","doi":"10.1038/s41405-023-00176-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to assess the degree of microleakage at the tooth restoration interface after using different nano prepared cavity disinfectants versus Diode Laser.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":36997,"journal":{"name":"BDJ Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10640611/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BDJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00176-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

不同空腔消毒纳米凝胶效果的比较评价氯己定、蜂胶、甘草与二极管激光复合微泄漏的比较研究。
应用不同的口腔消毒剂是口腔准备后消除细菌的必要步骤。然而,这些材料中的一些可能会影响修复的密封能力。目的:比较不同纳米口腔消毒剂与二极管激光对牙体修复界面微渗漏的影响程度。材料与方法:制备了三种纳米级消毒剂;蜂胶,甘草和氯己定。拔除的前磨牙共40颗,均为标准的V类空腔。按照应用口腔消毒方案将牙齿分为5组;无处理,氯己定,蜂胶,甘草,二极管激光。应用复合树脂修复后,所有牙齿进行热循环,然后以微米为单位测量微泄漏程度。数据分析采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)检验,随后采用Bonferroni’s和Tukey’s事后检验。结果:未给药组平均微漏值最高,甘草、蜂胶次之。而二极管激光组微漏程度最低。结论:二极管激光腔消毒剂对修复密封能力无负面影响。纳米蜂胶与纳米氯己定的微泄漏程度均较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BDJ Open
BDJ Open Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
34
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信