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)
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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Publishing Group
2023-11-01
|
| Series: | BDJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00176-2 |
| _version_ | 1797630061519568896 |
|---|---|
| author | Maryam Mohamed ElMansy Silvia Sabry Tawfik Tadros Reham Sayed Saleh Rehab Abdelmonem Hala El Menoufy Naglaa Shawky |
| author_facet | Maryam Mohamed ElMansy Silvia Sabry Tawfik Tadros Reham Sayed Saleh Rehab Abdelmonem Hala El Menoufy Naglaa Shawky |
| author_sort | Maryam Mohamed ElMansy |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T11:01:38Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ded9798eb8fc4cba9b8df5537a83c4f1 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2056-807X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T11:01:38Z |
| publishDate | 2023-11-01 |
| publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BDJ Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-ded9798eb8fc4cba9b8df5537a83c4f12023-11-12T12:27:47ZengNature Publishing GroupBDJ Open2056-807X2023-11-01911710.1038/s41405-023-00176-2Comparative 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)Maryam Mohamed ElMansy0Silvia Sabry Tawfik Tadros1Reham Sayed Saleh2Rehab Abdelmonem3Hala El Menoufy4Naglaa Shawky5Researcher of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontic and Pediatric Dentistry Department, Orodental Institute, National Research CentreLecturer of Conservative Dentistry, Conservative Surgery Department, College of Oral and Dental Surgery, Misr University for Science and Technology(MUST)Researcher of Restorative Dentistry, Restorative and Dental Materials Department, Orodental Institute, National Research CentreProfessor of Industrial Pharmacy, Department of Industrial Pharmacy, College of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Drug Manufacturing, Misr University for Science and Technology (MUST)Dean of Faculty of Dentistry, Professor of Laser Research Centre, Misr University for Science and Technology(MUST)Professor of Oral Medicine, Department of Oral Medicine, Periodontology, Diagnosis and Radiology, Al Azhar University, Laser Research Centre, Misr University for Science and Technology(MUST)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.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00176-2 |
| spellingShingle | Maryam Mohamed ElMansy Silvia Sabry Tawfik Tadros Reham Sayed Saleh Rehab Abdelmonem Hala El Menoufy Naglaa Shawky 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) BDJ Open |
| 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) |
| title_full | 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) |
| title_fullStr | 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) |
| title_full_unstemmed | 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) |
| title_short | 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) |
| title_sort | 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 |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00176-2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT maryammohamedelmansy comparativeevaluationontheeffectofdifferentcavitydisinfectantnanogelschlorohexidinepropolisliquoriceversusdiodelaserintermsofcompositemicroleakagecomparativeinvitrostudy AT silviasabrytawfiktadros comparativeevaluationontheeffectofdifferentcavitydisinfectantnanogelschlorohexidinepropolisliquoriceversusdiodelaserintermsofcompositemicroleakagecomparativeinvitrostudy AT rehamsayedsaleh comparativeevaluationontheeffectofdifferentcavitydisinfectantnanogelschlorohexidinepropolisliquoriceversusdiodelaserintermsofcompositemicroleakagecomparativeinvitrostudy AT rehababdelmonem comparativeevaluationontheeffectofdifferentcavitydisinfectantnanogelschlorohexidinepropolisliquoriceversusdiodelaserintermsofcompositemicroleakagecomparativeinvitrostudy AT halaelmenoufy comparativeevaluationontheeffectofdifferentcavitydisinfectantnanogelschlorohexidinepropolisliquoriceversusdiodelaserintermsofcompositemicroleakagecomparativeinvitrostudy AT naglaashawky comparativeevaluationontheeffectofdifferentcavitydisinfectantnanogelschlorohexidinepropolisliquoriceversusdiodelaserintermsofcompositemicroleakagecomparativeinvitrostudy |