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)

不同腔体消毒纳米凝胶(氯己定、蜂胶、甘草)与二极管激光在复合微渗漏方面的效果比较评价(体外比较研究)

阅读:1

Abstract

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.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。