Cargando…

Effect of different cavity conditioners on microleakage of glass ionomer cement with a high viscosity in primary teeth

BACKGROUND: Glass ionomer cement is a common material used in pediatric dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorations in deciduous teeth after conditioning with four different conditioners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty intact primary c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mazaheri, Romina, Pishevar, Leila, Shichani, Ava Vali, Geravandi, Sanas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4533191/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26288623
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.161448
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Glass ionomer cement is a common material used in pediatric dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorations in deciduous teeth after conditioning with four different conditioners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty intact primary canines were collected. Standard Class V cavities (2 mm × 1.5 mm × 3 mm) were prepared by one operator on all buccal tooth surfaces, including both enamel and dentin. The samples were divided into five groups with different conditioners (no conditioner, 20% acrylic acid, 35% phosphoric acid, 12% citric acid, and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid [EDTA]). Two-way — ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests were used to compare the means of microleakage between the five groups. The significance level was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the means of microleakage in incisal (enamel) and gingival (dentin) margins (P = 0.34). Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the means of microleakage in enamel and dentin margins (P = 0.4). There was a significant difference between the means of microleakage in different groups (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it is suggested that 20% acrylic acid and 17% EDTA be used for cavity conditioning which can result in better chemical and micromechanical adhesion.