Effects of Different Disinfection Methods on Microleakage of Giomer Restorations

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the effects of different disinfection methods on microleakage of Class V Giomer restorations. Materials and Methods Class V cavity preparation was performed on 40 sound permanent central incisors. Class V cavities (3 x 2 x 2 mm) were prepared on the buccal surfaces of the selected teeth. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups, each to be disinfected with a different method: Group 1—Disinfection with 2% chlorhexidine, Group 2—Disinfection with 6% sodium hypochlorite, Group 3—Disinfection with erbium, chromium: yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser, Group 4—Control (distilled water). BeautiBond adhesive and Beautifil II Giomer restoration materials were applied to all surfaces of the cavities after the disinfection of all groups. The teeth were thermocycled 5,000 times (5–55°C), and then were immersed in 0.5% methylene blue for 24 hours. After rinsing, the teeth were longitudinally sectioned and dye penetration was assessed under a stereomicroscope (40x) to evaluate microleakage. Statistical Analysis The results were statistically evaluated by using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests. Results Statistically, no significant difference was found between all four groups (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in microleakage scores of study groups (p > 0.05). Also, the microleakage scores of the gingival margins were significantly higher than the incisal margins (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Application of the different cavity disinfectants has no effect on the microleakage of Class V Giomer restorations.

Comparative evaluation on the effect of different cavity disinfectant nano gels; Chlorohexidine, Propolis, Liquorice versus Diode Laser in terms of composite microleakage

“…Concerning microleakage results as shown in Table (2,3) and Figure (1,2,3,4 and,5); the negative control group had high statistically signi cant microleakage values at both gingival and occlusal margins. This was in accordance with several studies 36,37,38 which proved that the negative control group had high degree of microleakage at the tooth-restoration in comparison to other groups using different cavity disinfectant protocols. On the other hand, Mutluay et al, 2019 37 and Unal et al 2021 36 proved that the negative control group didn't show any signi cate higher degree of microleakage than other groups using different cavity disinfectant methods.…”

“…This was in accordance with several studies 36,37,38 which proved that the negative control group had high degree of microleakage at the tooth-restoration in comparison to other groups using different cavity disinfectant protocols. On the other hand, Mutluay et al, 2019 37 and Unal et al 2021 36 proved that the negative control group didn't show any signi cate higher degree of microleakage than other groups using different cavity disinfectant methods. This might be due to different methodologies where different bonding technique was applied as well as using different restorative materials.…”

“…In addition, Satpute et al 2022 8 review article claimed that using Chlorhexidine enhances the durability of the restorative material due to its anticollagenolytic action on matrix metalloproteinases enzyme (MMPs). On the other hand, Mutluay et al, 2019 37 stated that Clorhexidine didn't negative effect on microleakage in the same manner as other cavity disinfectant protocols used in their study.…”

Microtensile Bond Strength, Marginal Leakage, and Antibacterial Effect of Bulk Fill Resin Composite with Alkaline Fillers versus Incremental Nanohybrid Composite Resin

“…15 After thermocycling, each tooth's apex was sealed with wax and its entire surface was covered with two layers of nail varnish. 16 All teeth were immersed in 0.1% methylene blue stain for 24 hours at room temperature, then removed and rinsed thoroughly under running water and sectioned mesiodistally. Dye penetration along both occlusal (O) and gingival margins (G) was evaluated at ×50 magnification with a stereomicroscope (Nikon MA100 stereomicroscope, Japan).…”