These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Microleakage in Resin Composite Restoration following Antimicrobial Pre-treatments with 2% Chlorhexidine and Clearfil Protect Bond.
    Author: Hameed H, Babu BP, Sagir VM, Chiriyath KJ, Mathias J, Shaji AP.
    Journal: J Int Oral Health; 2015 Jul; 7(7):71-6. PubMed ID: 26229374.
    Abstract:
    AIM: To evaluate microleakage in resin composite restorations after antimicrobial pre - treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty freshly extracted non carious human premolars were procured. In all forty premolar specimens, class V preparation of standard dimension were prepared and were randomly divided into three experimental and one control group. In all control and experimental groups the class V preparations were restored with FILTEK Z350 composite restorative material. The experimental groups included different self etching primers and 2% Chlorhexidine gluconate. The control group included Xeno III and no antimicrobial pre-treatment was done for the control group. Thereafter these specimens were thermocycled, dried and sealed with nail varnish, leaving 1mm around the restoration and immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours and then the specimens were subjected for microleakage evaluation. The results were statistically analyzed by Kruskal Wallis Test and Mann Whitney 'U' test. RESULTS: Results indicate that group II (2% chlorhexidine gluconate group) had the minimum mean value (15.05) and group III(Clearfil protect Bond group) and IV(control group) had the maximum mean microleakage at the enamel margin (23.00). At the gingival margin the lowest mean microleakage values were obtained with group I (Clearfil SE bond group) and group II (2% chlorhexidine gluconate) (20.25) and highest with group III and group IV (20.85). The difference was not statistically significant both at the enamel margin and the dentin margin (p>0.05). INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in-vitro study, we conclude that: None of the materials tested in this study completely eliminated microleakage at the enamel and at the gingival margin.All of the tested materials provided better sealing at the enamel margin than at the gingival margin.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]