| Literature DB >> 35248048 |
Patcharanun Borompiyasawat1, Boonsong Putraphan2, Sureerat Luangworakhun2, Waleerat Sukarawan3, Oranuch Techatharatip4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the mean mineral density (MMD) and examine the remineralization of carious dentin after cavity disinfection with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and restoration with high viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC) in vitro.Entities:
Keywords: Atraumatic restorative treatment; Cavity disinfectant; Chlorhexidine; Dental caries; Glass ionomer cement; Mean mineral density; Micro computed tomography; Primary teeth; Remineralization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35248048 PMCID: PMC8898514 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02098-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 2.757
Fig. 1Representative micro-CT scanned images. A The micro-CT scanned area. Upper green straight line showed the first occlusal limit which was included the first occlusal slide, lower green dash line showed the lower limit including the roof of pulp chamber. B The first slide of the occlusal surface from the baseline sample. C The first slide of the roof of pulp chamber from the baseline sample. D The after-restoration slide showed the difference contrast between H-GIC and dentin. E The preview selecting area of slide with restoration in contrast management, black area showed the excluding area such as restoration and enamel which had high resolution like the restoration and white area showed the including dentin area for mineral density calculation
The mean mineral density difference between 4 groups
| GROUP | A: Equia™ (mgHA/ccm) | B: CHX-Equia™ (mgHA/ccm) | C: Ketac™ (mgHA/ccm) | D: CHX-Ketac™ (mgHA/ccm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean mineral density baseline | 782.74 ± 71.238 | 735.31 ± 119.479 | 766.99 ± 59.361 | 717.10 ± 94.508 | 0.356 |
| Mean mineral density post-restoration | 871.55 ± 54.160 | 903.60 ± 63.015 | 932.54 ± 87.099 | 900.10 ± 71.427 | 0.299 |
| Mean mineral density post-pH cycling | 881.94 ± 77.213 | 904.52 ± 68.776 | 933.31 ± 73.769 | 922.26 ± 68.670 | 0.419 |
Fig. 2The comparison of mean mineral density of all groups
The mean mineral density gain difference between 4 groups
| GROUP | A: Equia™ (mgHA/ccm) | B: CHX-Equia™ (mgHA/ccm) | C: Ketac™ (mgHA/ccm) | D: CHX-Ketac™ (mgHA/ccm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean mineral density gain (post-restoration) | 88.81 ± 59.857 | 168.29 ± 100.899 | 165.54 ± 72.366 | 183.00 ± 73.096 | 0.045* |
| Mean mineral density gain (post-pH cycling) | 99.20 ± 77.240 | 169.21 ± 99.199 | 166.32 ± 74.182 | 205.15 ± 91.678 | 0.065 |
*Comparison the mean mineral density gain post-restoration of 4 groups, significant difference (P < 0.05)
Fig. 3The comparison of mean mineral density gain post-restoration between Equia™/CHX-Equia™ group and Ketac™/CHX-Ketac™ group
Fig. 4Dentin which contacted H-GIC restoration micrographs of SEM images at 60X magnification A Equia™ group, C CHX-Equia™ group, E Ketac™ group and G CHX-Ketac™ group and 5000X magnification B Equia™ group, D CHX-Equia™ group; the arrow represented inside surface of intratubular dentin, F Ketac™ group; the arrow represented peritubular dentin and (H.) CHX-Ketac™ group; the arrow represented particles on the dentin surface