Laila Al Deeb1, Mohammed S Bin-Shuwaish2, Eisha Abrar3, Mustafa Naseem4, Rana S Al-Hamdan5, Ahmed M Maawadh6, Modhi Al Deeb7, Thamer Almohareb8, Khold Al Ahdal9, Fahim Vohra10, Tariq Abduljabbar11. 1. Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545 Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: laldeeb@ksu.edu.sa. 2. Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545 Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: Malshowaish@ksu.edu.sa. 3. Department of Community and Preventive Dental Sciences, Dow International Dental College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan. Electronic address: Eshaabrar92@gmail.com. 4. Department of Community and Preventive Dental Sciences, Dow International Dental College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan. Electronic address: mustafa.naseem@duhs.edu.pk. 5. Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545 Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: Ralhamdan@ksu.edu.sa. 6. Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545 Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: amaawadh@ksu.edu.sa. 7. Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: modi84@gmail.com. 8. Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545 Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: Talmohareb@ksu.edu.sa. 9. Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545 Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: kalahdal@ksu.edu.sa. 10. Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: fvohra@ksu.edu.sa. 11. Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: tajabbar@ksu.edu.sa.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the adhesive bond integrity (shear bond strength-SBS) of composite resin bonded to carious dentin using chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), Er,Cr:YSGG laser (ECYL) and photodynamic therapy (PDT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty carious and ten non-carious mandibular teeth were collected through non-traumatic extraction. All samples were embedded in polyvinyl cross-sections to the cemento-enamel junction. The preparation of caries-affected dentin was performed by grinding the specimens using silicon carbide discs. All specimens were randomly allocated in to four groups (n = 10). Group 1, non-affected dentin with no disinfection; Group 2, caries affected dentin treated with 2% CHX; Group 3, affected dentin disinfected with PDT [100 mg/L methylene blue solution (MBS) and Diode laser]; Group 4, affected dentin treated with ECYL. Self-etch adhesive was smeared on all specimens for 10 s and photopolymerized for 10 s. All specimens were placed in an incubator with humid environment for 24 h at 37 °C followed by positioning in universal testing machine for SBS testing. Failure mode examination of debonded samples was performed by a stereomicroscope. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for inter group comparison through mean and standard deviation of each group. For multiple group comparison Tukey HSD was employed. Level of significance was established at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The highest SBS value was observed in group 1 (24.98 ± 1.59 MPa). Whereas, the lowest bond strength was displayed by group 3 (14.22 ± 1.40 MPa) specimens. Lased dentin in group 4 (15.89 ± 3.22 MPa) exhibited SBS values comparable to group 3 (14.22 ± 1.40 MPa). Group 2 (CHX-18.25 ± 1.29 MPa) exhibited statistically significant difference compared to all experimental groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adhesive bond strength of disinfected carious dentin was higher with CHX treatment as compared to Photodynamic therapy and Er,Cr: YSGG laser treatment. Carious dentin showed lower bond strength to composite resin as compared to non-carious dentin.
AIM: To evaluate the adhesive bond integrity (shear bond strength-SBS) of composite resin bonded to carious dentin using chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), Er,Cr:YSGG laser (ECYL) and photodynamic therapy (PDT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty carious and ten non-carious mandibular teeth were collected through non-traumatic extraction. All samples were embedded in polyvinyl cross-sections to the cemento-enamel junction. The preparation of caries-affected dentin was performed by grinding the specimens using silicon carbide discs. All specimens were randomly allocated in to four groups (n = 10). Group 1, non-affected dentin with no disinfection; Group 2, caries affected dentin treated with 2% CHX; Group 3, affected dentin disinfected with PDT [100 mg/L methylene blue solution (MBS) and Diode laser]; Group 4, affected dentin treated with ECYL. Self-etch adhesive was smeared on all specimens for 10 s and photopolymerized for 10 s. All specimens were placed in an incubator with humid environment for 24 h at 37 °C followed by positioning in universal testing machine for SBS testing. Failure mode examination of debonded samples was performed by a stereomicroscope. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for inter group comparison through mean and standard deviation of each group. For multiple group comparison Tukey HSD was employed. Level of significance was established at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The highest SBS value was observed in group 1 (24.98 ± 1.59 MPa). Whereas, the lowest bond strength was displayed by group 3 (14.22 ± 1.40 MPa) specimens. Lased dentin in group 4 (15.89 ± 3.22 MPa) exhibited SBS values comparable to group 3 (14.22 ± 1.40 MPa). Group 2 (CHX-18.25 ± 1.29 MPa) exhibited statistically significant difference compared to all experimental groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adhesive bond strength of disinfected carious dentin was higher with CHX treatment as compared to Photodynamic therapy and Er,Cr: YSGG laser treatment. Carious dentin showed lower bond strength to composite resin as compared to non-carious dentin.
Authors: Fayez Hussain Niazi; Zeeshan Qamar; Mohammed Noushad; Abdullah Khaled Bin Muhareb Journal: Pak J Med Sci Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.088