Maryam Mohamed ElMansy, Silvia Sabry Tawfik Tadros, Reham Sayed Saleh, Rehab Abdelmonem, Hala El Menoufy, Naglaa Shawky
{"title":"不同空腔消毒纳米凝胶效果的比较评价氯己定、蜂胶、甘草与二极管激光复合微泄漏的比较研究。","authors":"Maryam Mohamed ElMansy, Silvia Sabry Tawfik Tadros, Reham Sayed Saleh, Rehab Abdelmonem, Hala El Menoufy, Naglaa Shawky","doi":"10.1038/s41405-023-00176-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The application of different cavity disinfectants is an essential step that eliminates bacteria after cavity preparation. However, some of these materials may affect restoration sealing ability.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to assess the degree of microleakage at the tooth restoration interface after using different nano prepared cavity disinfectants versus Diode Laser.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three disinfectants were prepared on the nanoscale; Propolis, Liquorice and Chlorhexidine. A total of 40 extracted premolars with standard class V cavities were prepared on the facial surface. Teeth were divided into five groups according to the applied cavity disinfection protocol; no treatment, Chloehexidine, Propolis, Liquorice, and Diode Laser. After application of composite resin restoration, all teeth were subjected to thermocycling, afterwords the degree of microleakage was measured in micrometers. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, followed by Bonferroni's and Tukey's post hoc test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The highest mean microlekage value was recorded in no treatment group, followed by Liquorice, Propolis. While Diode Laser group showed the lowest degree of microleakage.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Diode Laser cavity disinfectant has no negative effect on the restoration sealing ability. Nano prepared Propolis showed comparative results to nanoChloehexidine as both had low degree of microleakage.</p>","PeriodicalId":36997,"journal":{"name":"BDJ Open","volume":"9 1","pages":"49"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10640611/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation on the effect of different cavity disinfectant nano gels; Chlorohexidine, Propolis, Liquorice versus Diode Laser in terms of composite microleakage (comparative in vitro study).\",\"authors\":\"Maryam Mohamed ElMansy, Silvia Sabry Tawfik Tadros, Reham Sayed Saleh, Rehab Abdelmonem, Hala El Menoufy, Naglaa Shawky\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41405-023-00176-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The application of different cavity disinfectants is an essential step that eliminates bacteria after cavity preparation. However, some of these materials may affect restoration sealing ability.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to assess the degree of microleakage at the tooth restoration interface after using different nano prepared cavity disinfectants versus Diode Laser.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three disinfectants were prepared on the nanoscale; Propolis, Liquorice and Chlorhexidine. A total of 40 extracted premolars with standard class V cavities were prepared on the facial surface. Teeth were divided into five groups according to the applied cavity disinfection protocol; no treatment, Chloehexidine, Propolis, Liquorice, and Diode Laser. After application of composite resin restoration, all teeth were subjected to thermocycling, afterwords the degree of microleakage was measured in micrometers. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, followed by Bonferroni's and Tukey's post hoc test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The highest mean microlekage value was recorded in no treatment group, followed by Liquorice, Propolis. While Diode Laser group showed the lowest degree of microleakage.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Diode Laser cavity disinfectant has no negative effect on the restoration sealing ability. Nano prepared Propolis showed comparative results to nanoChloehexidine as both had low degree of microleakage.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BDJ Open\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"49\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10640611/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BDJ Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00176-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BDJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00176-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative evaluation on the effect of different cavity disinfectant nano gels; Chlorohexidine, Propolis, Liquorice versus Diode Laser in terms of composite microleakage (comparative in vitro study).
Introduction: The application of different cavity disinfectants is an essential step that eliminates bacteria after cavity preparation. However, some of these materials may affect restoration sealing ability.
Aim: This study aimed to assess the degree of microleakage at the tooth restoration interface after using different nano prepared cavity disinfectants versus Diode Laser.
Materials and methods: Three disinfectants were prepared on the nanoscale; Propolis, Liquorice and Chlorhexidine. A total of 40 extracted premolars with standard class V cavities were prepared on the facial surface. Teeth were divided into five groups according to the applied cavity disinfection protocol; no treatment, Chloehexidine, Propolis, Liquorice, and Diode Laser. After application of composite resin restoration, all teeth were subjected to thermocycling, afterwords the degree of microleakage was measured in micrometers. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, followed by Bonferroni's and Tukey's post hoc test.
Results: The highest mean microlekage value was recorded in no treatment group, followed by Liquorice, Propolis. While Diode Laser group showed the lowest degree of microleakage.
Conclusion: Diode Laser cavity disinfectant has no negative effect on the restoration sealing ability. Nano prepared Propolis showed comparative results to nanoChloehexidine as both had low degree of microleakage.