Home | About Us | Editorial Board | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions | Subscription | Feedback | e-Alerts | Login 
Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Official publication of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
 Users Online: 1728  
 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 28  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 258-263
 

Comparative evaluation of the effect of cavity disinfectants on the fracture resistance of primary molars restored with indirect composite inlays: An in vitro study


Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, JSS Dental College and Hospital, A Constituent College of JSS University Mysore - 570 015, India

Date of Web Publication25-Jan-2011

Correspondence Address:
M D Indira
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, JSS Dental College and Hospital, A constituent College of JSS University Mysore - 570 015, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.76153

Rights and Permissions

 

   Abstract 

A study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effect of cavity disinfectants on the fracture resistance of primary molars restored with indirect composite inlays. Thirty-six non-carious primary second molars were selected and divided randomly into three groups (n = 12): control group (no disinfectant), chlorhexidine group (disinfected with 2% chlorhexidine for 40 seconds) and sodium hypochlorite group crowns (disinfected with 2% chlorhexidine for 40 seconds). The inlays were fabricated by indirect method using Ceram X nanocomposite on plaster die. All the groups were submitted to compression mechanic test in a Hounsfield universal testing machine at 1 mm/min cross-head speed and the results were calculated in Newtons. Descriptive statistics, independent t test, and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test revealed the mean fracture resistance of three groups, i.e., control group, chlorhexidine group and sodium hypochlorite group to be 2260.66, 1858.08 and 1310.66, respectively. When intragroup comparisons were made, a significant difference was observed in all the groups (P<0.001). Scheffe's post hoc test revealed that control group had the highest fracture resistance, followed by chlorhexidine group, and sodium hypochlorite group had the least fracture resistance. Each value differed significantly from the other (P<0.05). Cavity disinfectants used in the present study had detrimental effect on the fracture resistance of primary molars. Among the disinfectants employed in the present study, chlorhexidine showed a better resistance to fracture than sodium hypochlorite.


Keywords: Chlorhexidine, composite resins, fracture resistance, inlays, sodium hypochlorite


How to cite this article:
Indira M D, Nandlal B. Comparative evaluation of the effect of cavity disinfectants on the fracture resistance of primary molars restored with indirect composite inlays: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2010;28:258-63

How to cite this URL:
Indira M D, Nandlal B. Comparative evaluation of the effect of cavity disinfectants on the fracture resistance of primary molars restored with indirect composite inlays: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent [serial online] 2010 [cited 2019 Aug 18];28:258-63. Available from: http://www.jisppd.com/text.asp?2010/28/4/258/76153



   Introduction Top


Dental caries is one of the most common diseases, affecting approximately 80% of the population in developed countries. [1],[2] Finding a material that could restore the lost tooth structure and combining physical, chemical and esthetic properties which are optimal have been the goal of research for many years. In pediatric dentistry, it is common to observe the occurrence of the fast and severe decay causing greater loss of dental structure. Despite the development of pediatric dentistry, dental decay is still one of the diseases of greater prevalence, mainly in children. [3]

When direct composite resin is placed, polymerization may be inherently incomplete to the depth of several hundred microns within the polymer. This occurs secondary to the fact that radical polymerization is inhibited by ambient oxygen resulting in incomplete surface polymerization referred to as surface dispersion film. [4] The placement of direct posterior resin composite is accomplished by many problems like polymerization shrinkage, microleakage and wear. [4] The main shortcoming being polymerization shrinkage, when direct composite is placed in a large cavity, the mass to be polymerized is so large that the shrinkage forces win out, producing marginal defect and gaps, despite careful application and use of adhesive techniques. [5]

The indirect composite restoration shows many advantages compared to direct technique such as replacement of natural convexities of teeth, control of occlusal and proximal contact points, better marginal fit especially in the gingival wall, minimal shrinkage polymerization due to cement agents, good polishing and finishing possibilities, shorter clinical section and less contamination risk. [6] Furthermore, the additional cure of composite in indirect technique is not necessary because this could increase the wear resistance of some composites commercially available. [7]

Secondary decay can also be the result of the action of bacteria left under restoration. Investigations have shown the presence of bacteria in dentin after the removal of infected dentin even after the removal of dye stainable dentin. The use of disinfectant solutions such as fluorides, chlorhexidine and sodium hypochlorite is an alternative procedure to reduce or eliminate bacteria from cavity preparation. [8]

Hence, the present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of cavity disinfectants on resistance of fracture of primary molars restored with indirect composite inlays and to compare the effect of two different cavity disinfectants on fracture resistance of primary molars restored with indirect composite inlays.


   Materials and Methods Top


Thirty-six extracted, intact mandibular second primary molars were selected for this study. Teeth were selected for similarity in size, shape and root anatomy. Hard and soft deposits were removed with hand scaling instruments.

The following criteria for teeth selection were included in this study:

  • Teeth with not less than one-third of the root;
  • Teeth with no caries/cracks and
  • Teeth selected were within the normal range of mesio-lingual and bucco-lingual width.
  • The following teeth were excluded from this study:
  • Teeth with visible initial carious when viewed under magnification and
  • Teeth with less than one-third of root.
This was done so that the teeth of similar dimensions could be evenly distributed between groups. The tooth was stored in distilled water except during restoration and experimental testing.

All selected teeth were mounted in a wooden jig of standardized dimension. The acrylic resin was placed up to a point approximately 2 mm below cemento-enamel junction to approximately the height of healthy alveolar bone with standard inclination and parallelism.

The specimens were randomly divided into three groups of 12 samples each and color-coded with colored adhesive tapes and numbered. The numbered coding of samples included alphabetical initials of the color group they belonged to. The groups included control group (yellow), the chlorhexidine group (red) and the sodium hypochlorite group (black).

Cavity preparation for composite inlay


In order to standardize cavity preparation, a custom made jig was made [Figure 1]. The jig consisted of a vertical arm and a horizontal arm. To the vertical arm, provision was made so that it could move in both vertical and horizontal directions. Airotor, used to cut the cavity, was attached to the vertical arm. In the horizontal arm, a slot was made to place the mounted tooth. The cavity was prepared by moving the vertical arm in horizontal direction. The depth of the cavity was kept constant by moving the vertical arm in vertical direction using a movable attachment. The depth was measured by viewing the scale attached to the vertical arm.
Figure 1 :Cavity preparation jig

Click here to view


Based on the ideal design of cavity preparation for inlays, the cavity cutting was done on the occlusal surface of the selected mandibular second primary molars using diamond trunk conic burs. For the purpose of standardization, the cavity was not extended to the grooves and fissures. The depth of the cavity was placed 0.5 mm pulpally from the cemento-enamel junction/2.5 mm below the tallest cusp and the bucco-lingual width of the cavity was 2 mm. The pulpal floor was made flat [Figure 2].
Figure 2 :Prepared cavity and impression jig

Click here to view


The prepared cavity was rinsed with water and dried with cotton. Impressions from the preparation were taken using polyvinyl siloxane putty and soft rubber impression material [Figure 3]. The die was prepared using die stone type IV [Figure 4]. Die was separated using isolant solution. Indirect restoration (inlays) was fabricated using nanocomposite M2 Shade, by incremental technique beginning with proximal box followed by occlusal box. Each increment was photocured for 20 seconds using the soft start polymerization unit [Figure 5].
Figure 3 :Impression of prepared cavity

Click here to view
Figure 4 :Die

Click here to view
Figure 5 :Preparation of inlay on die

Click here to view


The prepared cavity was treated with 2% chlorhexidine for group II, and 1% sodium hypochlorite for group III was applied using disposable 5 ml syringe for 40 seconds, then washed off and dried [Figure 6]. After the disinfectant was applied on the prepared cavity, the dentine surface was etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds, washed and dried with adsorbent paper, followed by one bottle primer and adhesive application (Prime and bond NT), followed by curing for 10 seconds.
Figure 6 :Disinfection of prepared cavity

Click here to view


The inner surface of the inlay was cleaned and bonding agent was applied [Figure 7]. The resin luting cement was inserted on the inner surface of inlay and to the cavity walls; the inlay was fixed by finger pressing, simulating the clinical situation. The excess cement was removed after an initial cure of 10 seconds using an explorer. Then, each surface (buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal) was cured for 40 seconds. The finished restorations were stored in 100% humidity at 37°C for 24 hours, followed by testing.
Figure 7 :Cementation of inlay

Click here to view


The fracture resistance test was performed using Hounsfield universal testing machine [Figure 8]. The compressive load was applied on the occlusal surface with steel, 3 mm diameter ball end head at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min [Figure 9].
Figure 8 :Universal testing machine to evaluate fracture resistance

Click here to view
Figure 9 :Testing jig

Click here to view


The results were obtained at the specimen fracture and calculated in Newtons. The data were subjected to statistical analysis using descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), independent samples "t" test and Scheffe's post hoc test.[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3] and [Table 4]
Table 1 :Descriptive statistics of peak failure load (Newtons) for various groups

Click here to view
Table 2 :Results of one-way ANOVA for peak failure load (Newtons) for various groups

Click here to view
Table 3 :Results of Scheffe's post hoc test

Click here to view
Table 4 :Summary of comparison between various groups using independent samples "t" test

Click here to view



   Results Top


As shown in [Table 1], the mean fracture resistance of the three groups, control group, chlorhexidine group and sodium hypochlorite group, were 1117.00, 906.67 and 767.42, respectively, during first load application.

Further, Scheffe's post hoc test [Table 2],[Table 3] revealed that the control group had highest fracture resistance followed by chlorhexidine group, and sodium hypochlorite group had the least fracture resistance [Figure 10]. Each value differed significantly from the other (P < 0.05).

Between the groups also, a significant difference was found in the fracture resistance at load application. Further, the group statistics and independent t test [Table 3],[Table 4] revealed that between control and chlorhexidine groups, control group had the highest resistance to fracture (1117.00) compared to chlorhexidine group (906.6). Between control and sodium hypochlorite groups, the control group showed a higher resistance to fracture (1117.00) compared to sodium hypochlorite group (767.42). Between chlorhexidine and sodium hypochlorite groups, chlorhexidine group had a higher resistance to fracture (906.67) compared to sodium hypochlorite group (767.42).
Figure 10 :Mean fracture resistance values of various groups

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Residual microorganisms under restorations can cause recurrent caries and limit the dentin sealing ability of the bonding agents. Therefore, the cavity sterilization has become an important sequence in restorative procedure. [9] Phosphoric acid etchant materials demonstrate antimicrobial activity against some of the bacteria involved in caries. [10] However, some studies have shown that even after using the newest dentin bonding agents, a certain microleakage is apparent which allows the entrance of the oral fluids that can be used by residual bacteria as a nutritional requirement and bacterial entry. [10],[11] This mechanism is responsible for secondary caries. It would be necessary or advisable to place an additional disinfectant to treat dentin surfaces prior to the placing of restoration.

The resistance to fracture of a restored tooth may be considered to be associated with many factors, including cavity dimension [12],[13] and restorative system utilized. [14],[15] For indirect composite restorations, it may also be considered that the use of adhesive luting cement would enhance the resistance of fracture of the restored unit.

Chlorhexidine solutions have been indicated to be placed after cavity preparation to disinfect dentin. [16],[17] Chlorhexidine, a cationic agent, is the most widely used antibacterial agent. The cationic nature of chlorhexidine promotes the connection with anionic compound at the bacterial surface and alters its integrity and results in cell death. However, the remnants of chlorhexidine left after its application could interact with calcium and phosphate present in dentin and therefore inhibit bonding ability of bonding agents. [8]

Sodium hypochlorite is one of the most widely used irrigants. However, various studies have shown the effect of sodium hypochlorite as a cavity disinfectant on bond strength. The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of sodium hypochlorite as a cavity disinfectant on the fracture resistance of tooth.

Sodium hypochlorite breaks down to sodium chloride and oxygen, which causes oxidation of some components in the dentin matrix, [18] and consequently, decreases the elastic modulus and flexural strength of dentin. [19] Sodium hypochlorite could affect the resin penetration into the dentin structure and/or the polymerization of monomer in the dentin and also could influence the restoration's quality. [19]

In the present study, the disinfectants were applied before acid etch technique, which was in accordance with the studies conducted by Meiers and Kresin [11] and De Sousa Vieira and Da silva. [8] They found that the use of cavity disinfectant after tooth preparation and before the application of a dentin bonding agent could help reduce the potential for residual caries. They stated that cavity disinfectant used with composite resin restoration might be material specific regarding their interactions with various dentin bonding systems' ability to seal the dentin.

Polymerization shrinkage, and consequently, development of shrinkage stress is the main problem associated with the curing of composite dental materials. As a result of this phenomenon, debonding of the curing material from the dental tissues occurs, enabling the occurrence of marginal gaps. [20],[21]

Thus, with the clinicians looking for an alternative, the use of indirect resin composite restoration was first recommended in order to avoid some of the shortcomings of direct posterior resin composite restoration. Their mechanical and physical properties were reported to be enhanced and side effects of polymerization were reported to be reduced. [22],[23],[24]

Ausiello et al, [25] and Wendt et al, [26] affirmed that the efficacy of the bonding to dentin is based on hybridization, although their studies were carried out in permanent teeth. Ausiello et al, [25] using the finite element analysis (FEA), described the importance of adhesive systems on stress distribution in direct composite restorations because the stress difference is transferred to adhesive layer, generating a deformation.

With the results of the present study, it can be stated that use of cavity disinfectants reduces the fracture resistance of tooth. However, when chlorhexidine was used as a disinfectant, it showed a better resistance to fracture than using sodium hypochlorite as a disinfectant, within the limitations of this study. Hence, it can be suggested that whenever a clinical situation arises to restore a decayed deciduous teeth, it is advisable to use cavity disinfectants.

 
   References Top

1.Agerholm DM, Sidi AD. Reasons given for extraction of permanent teeth by general dental practitioners in England and Wales. Br Dent J 1988;164:345-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Burke FJ, Cheung SW, Mjor IA, Wilson NH. Reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations in vocational training practices. Prim Dent Care 1999;6:17-20.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Rira TS, Caldo-Teixeria AS, Pupin-Rontani RM. An alternative esthetic restoration for extensive coronal destruction in primary molars-indirect restorative technique with composite resin. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29:277-82.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Ellis RK, Donly KJ, Wild TW. Indirect composite resin crowns as an esthetic approach to treating ectodermal dysplasia: A case report. Quintessence Int 1992;22:727-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Van Dijken JW, Horstedt P. Marginal breakdown of 5-year-old direct composite inlays. J Dent 1996;24:389-94.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Borges AF, Correr GM, Sinhoreti MA, Consani S, Sobrinho LC, Rontani RM. Compressive strength recovery by composite onlays in primary teeth: Substrate treatment and luting agent effects. J Dent 2006;34:478-84.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. The effect of post curing on the quantity of remaining double bonds, mechanical properties and in-vitro wear of two resin composites. J Dent 2000;28:447-52.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.De Sousa Vieira R, Da Silva IA. Bond strength to primary tooth dentin following disinfection with chlorhexidine solution: An in vitro study. Pediatr Dent 2003;25;49-52.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Settermbrini WA. A comparison of anti microbial activity of the etchants used for a total etches technique. Oper Dent 1997;22:84-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Marshall JR, Grayson W. Dentin: Microstructure and characterization. Quintessence Int 1993;24:439-41.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Urabe I, Nakajima S, Sano H, Tagami J. Physical properties of the dentin-enamel junction region. Am J Dent 2000;13:129-35.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Eakle WS. Increased fracture resistance of teeth: Comparison of five bonded composite resin system. Quintessence Int 1986;17:17-20.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Eakle WS. Reinforcement of fractured posterior teeth with bonded composite restorations. Quintessence Int 1985;16:481-2.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Ausiello P, De Gee AJ, Rengo S, Davidson CL. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 1997;10:237-41.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Wendt Jr SL, Harris BM, Hunt TE. Resistance to cusp fracture in endodontically treated teeth. Dent Mater 1987;3:232-5.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Nikaido T, Takano Y, Sasafuchi Y, Burrow, Tagami J. Bond strengths to endodontically -treated teeth. Am J Dent 1999;12:177-80.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Sim TP, Knowles JC, Shelton J, Gulabivala K. Effect of sodium hypochlorite on mechanical properties of dentin and tooth surface strain. Int Endod J 2004;34:120-32.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Tulunoglu O, Ayhan H, Olmez A, Bodur H. The effect of cavity disinfectant on micro leakage in dentin bonding system. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998;22:299-305.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Perdigao J, Denehy GE, Swift E. Effect of chlorhexidine on dentin surfaces and shear bond strength. Am J Dent 1994;7:81-4.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-based restoratives. J Dent 1997;25:435-40.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Lovell LG, Newman SM, Donaldson MM, Bowman CN. The effect of light intensity on double bond conversion and flexural strength of a model, unfilled dental resin. Dent Mater 2003;19:458-65.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Khan AM, Satou N, Shintani H, Taira M, Wakasa K, Yamaki M. Effects of post curing by heat on the mechanical properties of visible-light cured inlay composites. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20:605-14.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Shortall AC, Uctasli S, Marquis PM. Fracture resistance of anterior, posterior and universal light activated composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2001;26:87-96.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Noort RV, Nooroozi S, Howard IC, Cardew G. Acritique of bond strength measurements. J Dent 1989;17:61-7.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Stampalia LL, Nicholls JL, Bruvik JS. Fracture resistance of teeth with resin-bonded restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:694-8.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Loe H, Schioott GR. The effect of the mouth rinse and topical application of chlorhexidine on development of plaque and gingivitis in man. J Periodont Res 1970;5:79-83.  Back to cited text no. 26
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9], [Figure 10]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (2,358 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
    Introduction
    Materials and Me...
    Results
    Discussion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4203    
    Printed174    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded360    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer 
  2005 - Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 
Online since 1st May '05