PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of 2% chlorhexidine-based cavity disinfectant on the microtensile bond strength of 3 restorative materials to caries-affected and sound primary dentin. METHODS:Eighteen exfoliated primary molars with occlusal caries and 18 sound primary molars were randomly divided into 3 experimental groups, according to the following restorative materials: (1) high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (GIC; KetacMolar); (2) resin-modified GIC (Vitremer); and (3) dentin adhesive (Prime&Bond NT) with a packable composite (Surefil). The molars were further divided into 2 subgroups according to the application of chlorhexidine-based cavity disinfectant (Consepsis). Standard restoration blocks of 5 mm high were built up over the treated surfaces. Bond strength results were evaluated using by 1-way analysis of variance, and multiple comparisons were done via Tukey's test (P<.05). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the high-viscosity and resin-modified GIC and composite showed the highest bond strength values on both dentin surfaces. The distribution of failure modes between the high-viscosity and resin-modified GICs were mostly cohesive where adhesive failures were noted significantly in the composite. CONCLUSION: Using 2% chlorhexidine gluconate did not interfere with the microtensile bond strength of glass ionomer cements and composite.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of 2% chlorhexidine-based cavity disinfectant on the microtensile bond strength of 3 restorative materials to caries-affected and sound primary dentin. METHODS: Eighteen exfoliated primary molars with occlusal caries and 18 sound primary molars were randomly divided into 3 experimental groups, according to the following restorative materials: (1) high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (GIC; KetacMolar); (2) resin-modified GIC (Vitremer); and (3) dentin adhesive (Prime&Bond NT) with a packable composite (Surefil). The molars were further divided into 2 subgroups according to the application of chlorhexidine-based cavity disinfectant (Consepsis). Standard restoration blocks of 5 mm high were built up over the treated surfaces. Bond strength results were evaluated using by 1-way analysis of variance, and multiple comparisons were done via Tukey's test (P<.05). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the high-viscosity and resin-modified GIC and composite showed the highest bond strength values on both dentin surfaces. The distribution of failure modes between the high-viscosity and resin-modified GICs were mostly cohesive where adhesive failures were noted significantly in the composite. CONCLUSION: Using 2% chlorhexidine gluconate did not interfere with the microtensile bond strength of glass ionomer cements and composite.