Jamie Crowley, Nader Abdulhameed, Rand Al-Obaidi, Hind Hussein
{"title":"预防性牙科产品对粘结力的影响：体外研究","authors":"Jamie Crowley, Nader Abdulhameed, Rand Al-Obaidi, Hind Hussein","doi":"10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_201_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Testing the effect of Fluoride, chlorhexidine, and molecular iodine applications on the mean micro-shear bond strength (SBS) of enamel in an attempt to preserve enamel integrity during the bonding process.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study was an observational case-control one in which 150 human teeth were classified into 10 groups according to the product kind and the prescribed treatment. Each group consisted of 15 teeth. Group C was the control group. Groups FP, FV, and OS utilized products that could be utilized in a professional dental setting. Group FP was treated with 1.23% NaF prophy paste, Group FV was treated with 5% NaF varnish, and Group OS was treated with Opal® Seal Fluoride releasing primer and sealant. Groups L, LF, CHX, and I were treated with mouth rinses. Group L was treated with Listerine Zero Fluoride-Free Mouthwash, Group LF with Listerine Zero 0.02% NaF Mouth Rinse, Group CHX with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, and Group I with ioRinse RTU 100 ppm molecular iodine rinse. Groups TP and G utilized alternative remineralization products. Group TP was treated with Fluoro Calcium Phosphosilicate bioglass containing toothpaste, and Group G was treated with Curodont Protect remineralizing tooth gel. One-way ANOVA test was utilized to perform all statistical analysis in this study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For mean micro-SBS, no significant difference (<i>P</i> > 0.05) between any of the experimental groups was observed when compared to the control group. There was a significant difference (<i>P</i> < 0.05) between Opal Seal versus Listerine Total, Opal Seal versus Peridex, Listerine versus Listerine Total, and Listerine versus Peridex. All other experimental group comparisons revealed a nonsignificant difference (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As the null hypothesis (H0) assumes that changes observed in an experiment are due to chance, hence, the outcomes of this study are coherent with (H0) since the aforementioned application methods did not significantly impact the SBS of orthodontic resin cement to enamel.</p>","PeriodicalId":47247,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry","volume":"14 3","pages":"243-251"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11268531/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Preventive Dental Products on Bonding Force: An <i>in vitro</i> Study.\",\"authors\":\"Jamie Crowley, Nader Abdulhameed, Rand Al-Obaidi, Hind Hussein\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_201_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Testing the effect of Fluoride, chlorhexidine, and molecular iodine applications on the mean micro-shear bond strength (SBS) of enamel in an attempt to preserve enamel integrity during the bonding process.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study was an observational case-control one in which 150 human teeth were classified into 10 groups according to the product kind and the prescribed treatment. Each group consisted of 15 teeth. Group C was the control group. Groups FP, FV, and OS utilized products that could be utilized in a professional dental setting. Group FP was treated with 1.23% NaF prophy paste, Group FV was treated with 5% NaF varnish, and Group OS was treated with Opal® Seal Fluoride releasing primer and sealant. Groups L, LF, CHX, and I were treated with mouth rinses. Group L was treated with Listerine Zero Fluoride-Free Mouthwash, Group LF with Listerine Zero 0.02% NaF Mouth Rinse, Group CHX with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, and Group I with ioRinse RTU 100 ppm molecular iodine rinse. Groups TP and G utilized alternative remineralization products. Group TP was treated with Fluoro Calcium Phosphosilicate bioglass containing toothpaste, and Group G was treated with Curodont Protect remineralizing tooth gel. One-way ANOVA test was utilized to perform all statistical analysis in this study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For mean micro-SBS, no significant difference (<i>P</i> > 0.05) between any of the experimental groups was observed when compared to the control group. There was a significant difference (<i>P</i> < 0.05) between Opal Seal versus Listerine Total, Opal Seal versus Peridex, Listerine versus Listerine Total, and Listerine versus Peridex. All other experimental group comparisons revealed a nonsignificant difference (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As the null hypothesis (H0) assumes that changes observed in an experiment are due to chance, hence, the outcomes of this study are coherent with (H0) since the aforementioned application methods did not significantly impact the SBS of orthodontic resin cement to enamel.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47247,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"14 3\",\"pages\":\"243-251\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11268531/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_201_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_201_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of Preventive Dental Products on Bonding Force: An in vitro Study.
Aim: Testing the effect of Fluoride, chlorhexidine, and molecular iodine applications on the mean micro-shear bond strength (SBS) of enamel in an attempt to preserve enamel integrity during the bonding process.
Materials and methods: The study was an observational case-control one in which 150 human teeth were classified into 10 groups according to the product kind and the prescribed treatment. Each group consisted of 15 teeth. Group C was the control group. Groups FP, FV, and OS utilized products that could be utilized in a professional dental setting. Group FP was treated with 1.23% NaF prophy paste, Group FV was treated with 5% NaF varnish, and Group OS was treated with Opal® Seal Fluoride releasing primer and sealant. Groups L, LF, CHX, and I were treated with mouth rinses. Group L was treated with Listerine Zero Fluoride-Free Mouthwash, Group LF with Listerine Zero 0.02% NaF Mouth Rinse, Group CHX with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, and Group I with ioRinse RTU 100 ppm molecular iodine rinse. Groups TP and G utilized alternative remineralization products. Group TP was treated with Fluoro Calcium Phosphosilicate bioglass containing toothpaste, and Group G was treated with Curodont Protect remineralizing tooth gel. One-way ANOVA test was utilized to perform all statistical analysis in this study.
Results: For mean micro-SBS, no significant difference (P > 0.05) between any of the experimental groups was observed when compared to the control group. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) between Opal Seal versus Listerine Total, Opal Seal versus Peridex, Listerine versus Listerine Total, and Listerine versus Peridex. All other experimental group comparisons revealed a nonsignificant difference (P > 0.05).
Conclusions: As the null hypothesis (H0) assumes that changes observed in an experiment are due to chance, hence, the outcomes of this study are coherent with (H0) since the aforementioned application methods did not significantly impact the SBS of orthodontic resin cement to enamel.
期刊介绍：
It is a journal aimed for research, scientific facts and details covering all specialties of dentistry with a good determination for exploring and sharing the knowledge in the medical and dental fraternity. The scope is therefore huge covering almost all streams of dentistry - starting from original studies, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, very unique case reports. Journal scope is not limited to these subjects and is more wider covering all specialities of dentistry follows: -Preventive and Community dentistry (Dental public health)- Endodontics- Oral and maxillofacial pathology- Oral and maxillofacial radiology- Oral and maxillofacial surgery (also called oral surgery)- Orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics- Periodontology (also called periodontics)- Pediatric dentistry (also called pedodontics)- Prosthodontics (also called prosthetic dentistry)- Oral medicine- Special needs dentistry (also called special care dentistry)- Oral Biology- Forensic odontology- Geriatric dentistry or Geriodontics- Preventive and Social Medicine (Public health)- Our journal appreciates research articles pertaining with advancement of dentistry, preventive and community dentistry including oral epidemiology, oral health services research, oral health education and promotion, behavioral sciences related to dentistry, dental jurisprudence, ethics and oral health, economics, and quality assessment, recent advances in preventive dentistry and community dentistry.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
