Microleakage Evaluation of Glass Hybrid Restoration Following Usage of Papain-Based Gel and Ceramic Bur for Caries Removal: An In Vitro Study

IF 1.6 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Dental Hypotheses Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_48_22
Halah Abdulkareem Alkhawaja, A. A. Al Haidar
{"title":"Microleakage Evaluation of Glass Hybrid Restoration Following Usage of Papain-Based Gel and Ceramic Bur for Caries Removal: An In Vitro Study","authors":"Halah Abdulkareem Alkhawaja, A. A. Al Haidar","doi":"10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_48_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: In the field of pediatric dentistry, an urge to adopt a more comfortable, minimally invasive, and stressless technique for caries removal became a must. Coronavirus disease-2019 outbreak necessitates a paradigm change in the global health care protocols, requiring alternative, nonaerosol generating approaches. This study aimed to measure and compare the influence of two methods of caries removal, namely, Brix3000 and CeraBur, on the microleakage of glass hybrid restorative material. Materials and Methods: Thirty human primary molar teeth with accessible occluso-gingival carious cavitation were randomly allocated into CeraBur and Brix3000 groups. After selective caries excavation, samples were restored with Equia Forte HT, thermocycled, dipped in thiazine dye, washed, and sectioned through the restoration center. Then microleakage was measured using a stereomicroscope (30× magnification) at both occlusal and gingival margins. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the two methods of caries removal (CeraBur and Brix3000) at both occlusal (P = 1.000) and gingival margins (P = 0.612). Conclusions: Brix3000 caries removing gel did not negatively affect the microleakage of Equia Forte HT compared to the CeraBur and hence can be used alternatively to the conventional drilling methods.","PeriodicalId":43354,"journal":{"name":"Dental Hypotheses","volume":"13 1","pages":"57 - 60"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Hypotheses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_48_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In the field of pediatric dentistry, an urge to adopt a more comfortable, minimally invasive, and stressless technique for caries removal became a must. Coronavirus disease-2019 outbreak necessitates a paradigm change in the global health care protocols, requiring alternative, nonaerosol generating approaches. This study aimed to measure and compare the influence of two methods of caries removal, namely, Brix3000 and CeraBur, on the microleakage of glass hybrid restorative material. Materials and Methods: Thirty human primary molar teeth with accessible occluso-gingival carious cavitation were randomly allocated into CeraBur and Brix3000 groups. After selective caries excavation, samples were restored with Equia Forte HT, thermocycled, dipped in thiazine dye, washed, and sectioned through the restoration center. Then microleakage was measured using a stereomicroscope (30× magnification) at both occlusal and gingival margins. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the two methods of caries removal (CeraBur and Brix3000) at both occlusal (P = 1.000) and gingival margins (P = 0.612). Conclusions: Brix3000 caries removing gel did not negatively affect the microleakage of Equia Forte HT compared to the CeraBur and hence can be used alternatively to the conventional drilling methods.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
木瓜基凝胶与陶瓷复合牙体除龋后玻璃复合牙体的微渗漏评价
引言:在儿童牙科领域,必须采用一种更舒适、微创、无压力的龋齿去除技术。2019冠状病毒病的爆发需要改变全球医疗保健协议的模式,需要替代的、不产生气溶胶的方法。本研究旨在测量和比较Brix3000和CeraBur两种除龋方法对玻璃混合修复材料微渗漏的影响。材料与方法:将30颗可及性咬合-牙龈龋蚀的人类原磨牙随机分为CeraBur组和Brix3000组。在选择性龋齿挖掘后,用Equia Forte HT修复样品,热循环,浸入噻嗪染料,洗涤,并通过修复中心切片。然后使用立体显微镜(放大30倍)在咬合和牙龈边缘测量微渗漏。结果:两种除龋方法(CeraBur和Brix3000)在咬合缘(P=1.000)和牙龈缘(P=0.612)均未发现统计学上的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Dental Hypotheses
Dental Hypotheses DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊最新文献
Analysis of Salivary Levels of IL-8 and IL-34 in Periodontitis Patients: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study Endodontic Microsurgery for a Mandibular First Molar With a Large Lateral Canal in Mesial Root: A Case Report Assessment of the Impact of Adhesive and Wires Types on the Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed Lingual Retainers Used in Orthodontics: An In Vitro Study Three-Dimensional Culture of Human Dental Pulp Tissue: A Preliminary Experimental In Vitro Model for Regenerative Endodontic Procedures Revolutionizing Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Evidence Synthesis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1