Cargando…

A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study

Objective: To do a comparative study of microleakage of glass ionomer cement (GIC) and chitosan modified glass ionomer cement and evaluate which exhibited lesser microleakage. Materials and methods: Sixty freshly extracted sound primary molar teeth were obtained. Two groups of samples were created f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abraham, Deena, Thomas, Abi Mathew, Chopra, Saroj, Koshy, Stephen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4144057/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25206230
http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1225
_version_ 1782331999858458624
author Abraham, Deena
Thomas, Abi Mathew
Chopra, Saroj
Koshy, Stephen
author_facet Abraham, Deena
Thomas, Abi Mathew
Chopra, Saroj
Koshy, Stephen
author_sort Abraham, Deena
collection PubMed
description Objective: To do a comparative study of microleakage of glass ionomer cement (GIC) and chitosan modified glass ionomer cement and evaluate which exhibited lesser microleakage. Materials and methods: Sixty freshly extracted sound primary molar teeth were obtained. Two groups of samples were created for the study which comprised of group I (glass ionomer cement—GIC) and group II (Chitosan modified glass ionomer cement). Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces. All the tooth surfaces except the restoration and a 1 mm zone adjacent to its margins were covered with two coats of varnish. The specimens were then immersed in 2% basic fuschin dye solution for 24 hours. The teeth were sectioned into two halves buccolingually in an occlusoapical direction. Sections were viewed under stereomicroscope and the degree of microleakage was evaluated using specific scoring criteria. For comparative evaluation of microleakage scores between glass ionomer cement and chitosan modified cement, a nonparametric Mann-Whitney statistical analysis was done. Results: Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between groups I and II with the p-value at >0.05. Conclusion: Chitosan modified GIC holds great promise for general dentistry as a future restorative material with microleakage properties similar to or better than GIC. How to cite this article: Abraham D, Thomas AM, Chopra S, Koshy S. A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7(1):6-10.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4144057
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41440572014-09-09 A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study Abraham, Deena Thomas, Abi Mathew Chopra, Saroj Koshy, Stephen Int J Clin Pediatr Dent Research Article Objective: To do a comparative study of microleakage of glass ionomer cement (GIC) and chitosan modified glass ionomer cement and evaluate which exhibited lesser microleakage. Materials and methods: Sixty freshly extracted sound primary molar teeth were obtained. Two groups of samples were created for the study which comprised of group I (glass ionomer cement—GIC) and group II (Chitosan modified glass ionomer cement). Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces. All the tooth surfaces except the restoration and a 1 mm zone adjacent to its margins were covered with two coats of varnish. The specimens were then immersed in 2% basic fuschin dye solution for 24 hours. The teeth were sectioned into two halves buccolingually in an occlusoapical direction. Sections were viewed under stereomicroscope and the degree of microleakage was evaluated using specific scoring criteria. For comparative evaluation of microleakage scores between glass ionomer cement and chitosan modified cement, a nonparametric Mann-Whitney statistical analysis was done. Results: Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between groups I and II with the p-value at >0.05. Conclusion: Chitosan modified GIC holds great promise for general dentistry as a future restorative material with microleakage properties similar to or better than GIC. How to cite this article: Abraham D, Thomas AM, Chopra S, Koshy S. A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7(1):6-10. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers 2014 2014-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4144057/ /pubmed/25206230 http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1225 Text en Copyright © 2014; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
spellingShingle Research Article
Abraham, Deena
Thomas, Abi Mathew
Chopra, Saroj
Koshy, Stephen
A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study
title A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study
title_full A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study
title_fullStr A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study
title_short A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study
title_sort comparative evaluation of microleakage of glass ionomer cement and chitosan-modified glass ionomer cement: an in vitro study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4144057/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25206230
http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1225
work_keys_str_mv AT abrahamdeena acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofglassionomercementandchitosanmodifiedglassionomercementaninvitrostudy
AT thomasabimathew acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofglassionomercementandchitosanmodifiedglassionomercementaninvitrostudy
AT choprasaroj acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofglassionomercementandchitosanmodifiedglassionomercementaninvitrostudy
AT koshystephen acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofglassionomercementandchitosanmodifiedglassionomercementaninvitrostudy
AT abrahamdeena comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofglassionomercementandchitosanmodifiedglassionomercementaninvitrostudy
AT thomasabimathew comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofglassionomercementandchitosanmodifiedglassionomercementaninvitrostudy
AT choprasaroj comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofglassionomercementandchitosanmodifiedglassionomercementaninvitrostudy
AT koshystephen comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofglassionomercementandchitosanmodifiedglassionomercementaninvitrostudy