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: 101  
 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 40  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 180-187
 

Effect of three different conditioning agents on cavosurface microleakage and bond strength of glass ionomer restorations – An in vitro study


Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Teerthanker Mahaveer Dental College and Research Centre, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Submission23-Mar-2022
Date of Decision18-May-2022
Date of Acceptance18-May-2022
Date of Web Publication15-Jul-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mustafa Khan
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Teerthanker Mahaveer Dental College and Research Centre, Delhi Road, Moradabad - 244 102, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_144_22

Rights and Permissions

 

   Abstract 


Aim: This study aimed to investigate the conditioning effects of phosphoric acid/5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) mixture, 2% chlorhexidine (CHX) digluconate, and 10% polyacrylic acid on cavosurface microleakage and bond strength of glass ionomer (GI) restorations. Materials and Methods: Out of 68 extracted premolars, 34 teeth were selected for microleakage and 34 for bond strength evaluation. The samples were divided into the following four groups. Group 1: pretreatment with 50/50 volume% mixture of 5.25% NaOCl solution and 37% phosphoric acid (H3PO4), Group 2:pretreatment with 2% CHX digluconate, Group 3: pretreatment with 10% polyacrylic acid (positive control), and Group 4: no pretreatment (negative control). All the samples were then restored with glass ionomer cement (GIC). Microleakage was evaluated using a stereomicroscope and rhodamine-B dye penetration test. For bond strength, flat dentin surface was exposed and pretreated as mentioned previously and restored with GIC and was evaluated using universal testing machine. Results: Among all the four groups, Group 1 showed least microleakage and highest bond strength when compared with other groups. Whereas the Group 4 samples which were not pretreated with any of the conditioning agent showed the least shear bond strength with greatest cavosurface microleakage when compared to the groups which were pretreated with the conditioning agents. Conclusions: A combination of 50/50 volume % mixture of 37% H3PO4 and 5.25% NaOCl can be a good choice for surface pretreatment of GI restorations.


Keywords: Deproteinization, dye penetration, microleakage, shear bond strength, smear layer


How to cite this article:
Khan M, Kaur H, Choudhary R, Yeluri R. Effect of three different conditioning agents on cavosurface microleakage and bond strength of glass ionomer restorations – An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2022;40:180-7

How to cite this URL:
Khan M, Kaur H, Choudhary R, Yeluri R. Effect of three different conditioning agents on cavosurface microleakage and bond strength of glass ionomer restorations – An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Oct 5];40:180-7. Available from: http://www.jisppd.com/text.asp?2022/40/2/180/351037





   Introduction Top


The ability of a restorative material to adhere well to the tooth and avoid cavosurface microleakage is one of the most critical needs in restorations. The marginal seal provided by restorative materials is critical for the longevity of the restoration.[1] Adhesive restorative materials currently lack a sufficient marginal seal and hence are unable to prevent microleakage.[2],[3] Close contact between the two substances being linked is required for effective adhesion, and a smear layer, which can be formed during tooth preparation, might disrupt this intimate contact and compromise adhesion quality.[4],[5],[6]

Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is the only restorative material that can develop a chemical as well as a micromechanical bond with the tooth substance.[4],[7] Many studies have suggested that pretreatment of the cavity surface before to glass ionomer (GI) application is required to provide better adherence of a restorative material to the remaining structure of the tooth.[8],[9],[10] Prior to GI restorations, conditioning treatments with the etchants of weak mineral or milder organic acid like pyruvic acid (10%), nitric acid (2.5%), polyacrylic acid (20%), citric acid (10%), oxalic acid (1.5%–3.5%) and aluminum chloride were recommended.[5],[11]

According to Yilmaz et al.,[12] the objective of conditioning the cavity surface is to eliminate the surface impurities and the smear layer that can impede the adhesion of cements to the surface of the tooth, especially to dentin surface. GIC's acidic nature has also been claimed to partially dissolve the smear layer.[13] Polyacrylic acid has long been used as a pretreatment for GI restorations, and various investigations have confirmed its effectiveness. Charlton and Haveman[8] compared untreated dentin to dentin prepared with 10% polyacrylic acid and discovered that using a conditioner improved the bonding quality to dentin substantially. As a deproteinizing agent beneath resin composites with improved adhesiveness, sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) has been employed on enamel and dentine.[14] Nassif and El-Korashy[15] studied the effect of a NaOCl/phosphoric acid mixture as a new dentin conditioner under resin composites and found that the etch and rinse single bottle adhesives to dentine had a greater shear bond strength (SBS).

Because of its antibacterial activity, inhibition of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), and debris removal, chlorhexidine (CHX) digluconate (2%) is advised for use in restorative dentistry following tooth preparation or etching with phosphoric acid and before closing the dentinal tubules.[16],[17] Given that 2% CHX digluconate eliminates debris and the smear layer in addition to its other features, only one study has tested the effect of 2% CHX digluconate as a dentin-GI restoration conditioner.[17]

Since the combined conditioning/deproteinization concept has never been tested in GI restorations and there is no study available in the literature comparing the conditioning effects of these three agents, this study was performed to estimate the consequences of H3PO4/5.25% NaOCl deproteinization, 2% CHX digluconate cavity cleanser and 10% polyacrylic acid conditioner, on cavosurface microleakage and bond strength of GI restorations.


   Materials and Methods Top


The institutional ethics committee received the study protocol and gave its approval vide Ref. No. TMDCRC/IEC/19-20/PPD3 dated November 06, 2019.The sample size for this study was calculated using G* power software, version 3.0.1 (Franz Faul universitat, Kiel, Germany), following establishment of power analysis. A sample size of 136 samples–of 68 teeth as 2 samples per tooth (34 in each group) would yield 80% power to detect significant differences, with effect size of 0.29 and significance level at 0.05. A total number of 125 human premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic/periodontal reasons were collected from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The extracted teeth with the enamel cracks, fracture, malformation, erosion or restoration were then excluded from the study.

The extracted teeth were washed under running tap water to clean the blood from it and then hand scaling was performed to remove the adherent tissues from the root surfaces. The teeth were then stored in thymol solution along with the distilled water for 1 week[18] followed by storage of all the extracted teeth in normal saline till further use. Out of 125 collected teeth, 34 teeth were excluded due to enamel cracks, fracture line, carious lesions or erosions. The remaining samples were processed as indicated in Flowchart 1.The samples were grouped in the following manner:

  1. Group 1 – Pretreatment with 50/50 volume% mixture of 5.25% NaOCl solution and 37% phosphoric acid– Mixture was prepared by mixing 5 ml of 5.25% NaOCl and 5 ml of 37% phosphoric acid solution in a container[15]
  2. Group 2 – Pretreatment with 2% CHX digluconate
  3. Group 3 – Pretreatment with 10% polyacrylic acid (positive control)
  4. Group 4 – No pretreatment (negative control).


Using a straight fissure bur of tungsten carbide and air-water cooling, a standardized Class-V cavity was prepared on the lingual and buccal surfaces of each tooth. The dimensions of the cavity preparations were 3 mm in width, 3.5 mm in height, and 2 mm in axial depth,[17] and the occlusal and gingival margins were in enamel and dentine, respectively. In Group-1, a 50/50 volume% mixture of 37% H3PO4 and 5.25% NaOCl solution was applied for 60 s before being washed and blot dried.[15] In Group-2, 2% CHX (Bisco, Inc. Irwing Park Rd. Shaumburg, USA) was applied with a micro brush for 20 s before being air dried for 5 s. In Group-3, 10% polyacrylic acid (GC Corporation, Hasunuma-Cho, Tokyo, Japan) was incorporated to the cavity surface using a micro-brush for 20 s before being washed thoroughly with water. In Group-4, no surface pretreatment of the samples was carried out [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Application of conditioning agents on the cavity of the samples for microleakage evaluation

Click here to view


After surface treatments, restorative GIC (GC Europe N. V. Interleuvenlaan, B-3001) was filled into the cavities. The exposed root and crown structures were then shielded with 2 coats of nail paint excluding the restoration part and 1 mm around the cavosurface margins of the restoration [Figure 2].The samples were then stored in distilled water for 24 h at room temperature (ISO Test type-I).[19] The samples were then subjected to 500 cycles of thermocycling at 5°C and 55°C (ISO Test type-II),[19] followed by a 5-s water bath and a 5-s dwell time between each bath.[19] All the samples were then dipped in rhodamine B dye solution for 24 h[2] followed by thorough washing under running tap water. After the longitudinal sectioning of the samples in bucco-lingual direction, they were examined under stereomicroscope and the following grading criteria[20] had been used [Figure 3]:
Figure 2: Application of nail varnish on extracted samples for microleakage evaluation

Click here to view
Figure 3: Sectioned sample for microleakage evaluation

Click here to view


  • Score 0 – Microleakage not observed
  • Score 1 – Microleakage up to enamel-dentin junction
  • Score 2 – Microleakage above to enamel-dentine junction
  • Score 3 – Microleakage up to the bottom of the axial wall
  • Score 4 – Microleakage in the base of the cavity.


For SBS testing, the roots of all the included samples as shown in Flowchart 1 were removed from 1 mm below the cemento-enamel junction and a flat dentin surface was prepared on lingual/palatal and buccal surfaces of all the samples with a diamond abrasive disc in a slow speed under continuous water cooling. The obtained samples were then submerged in self cure acrylic resin (DPI RR cold cure, Dental products of India, Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd.) blocks of 1 cm diameter and 2 cm in height. The exposed dentin surface of the samples were then pretreated with conditioning agents the same way as it was carried out in samples for microleakage evaluation in all the four groups [Figure 4]. A round stainless steel split mold[21] with a circular window in the center of 3 mm diameter and of 3 mm height was attached to the tooth's defined surface and stabilized using an adhesive tape.
Figure 4: Application of conditioning agent for bond strength evaluation

Click here to view


GIC was mixed as per manufacturer's instructions and condensed on the dentin surface. The split mold was then removed, followed by the adhesive tape with the 3 mm circular window [Figure 5]a. The samples were then subjected to thermocycling, consisting of 500 cycles in a water bath at 5°C and 55°C (Test type-2).[19] Each bath was exposed for 20 seconds, and the time between baths was 5 s. An Instron Universal Testing Machine (Instron Corporation, Canton, MA, USA) was used to evaluate bond strength at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min [Figure 5]b. The unit of measurement of SBS was in mega pascal (MPa). The stereomicroscopic analysis was done for the samples in ×40 magnification and classified into 3 types:
Figure 5: (a) Glass ionomer built-up on the delineated tooth surface (b) Shear probe used in this study

Click here to view


  • Type 1: Cohesive failure
  • Type 2: Adhesive failure
  • Type 3: Mixed failure.


The data for the present study was entered in the Microsoft Excel 2007 and analyzed using SPSS statistical software 20.0 version for windows IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences statistics, IBM corp., 2018, Chicago, USA. The descriptive statistics included mean, standard deviation. The intergroup comparison for the difference of mean scores between independent groups was done using Kruskal–Wallis test followed post hoc analysis. The level of significance for the present study was predetermined at P ≤ 0.05.


   Results Top


[Table 1] shows the mean SBS values (MPa) of all the three groups. The highest SBS was observed in Group 1 and lowest in control group. There were significant differences observed between the groups (P < 0.05). [Table 2] shows the post hoc analysis indicating the superior effectiveness of phosphoric acid/5.25% NaOCl mixture as a pretreatment agent. [Table 3] shows the modes of fracture pattern analyzed under stereomicroscope where maximum cohesive fractures were observed in group 1 and least in group 4. Maximum of adhesive failures was observed in group 4 whereas it was least in group 1. Mixed (cohesive-adhesive) fracture was same in the group 1 and group 2 i.e., 23.52% and for group 3 and group 4 it was 29.4% respectively [Figure 6]a, [Figure 6]b, [Figure 6]c.
Figure 6: (a) Stereomicroscopic image of cohesive failure (b) adhesive failure (c) mixed (cohesive-adhesive) failure

Click here to view
Table 1: Comparison of mean SBS between different groups with one-way ANOVA test

Click here to view
Table 2: Post hoc analysis for shear bond strength

Click here to view
Table 3: Failure analysis of all the samples after SBS testing

Click here to view


For microleakage, group 4 presented the maximum microleakage with a mean of 3.294 ± 0.771 as represented in [Table 4] and [Figure 7]. One way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) for microleakage values also. [Table 5] represents the post hoc analysis for microleakage.
Table 4: Comparison of mean microleakage scores between different groups with one-way ANOVA test

Click here to view
Table 5: Post hoc analysis for microleakage

Click here to view
Figure 7: Stereomicroscopic image of the tooth sample for microleakage evaluation

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Composite materials and GICs are often used in restorative dentistry for curative treatments.[20] The ionic response of GIC with the tooth surface is thought to be superior, and it can be further improved by using an acid conditioner on the tooth surface. To distinguish it from acid etching, McLean and Wilson coined the term surface conditioning for pretreatment. Conditioning of the surface is used to reduce the amount of alteration in the structures of the tooth surfaces after they have been cut.[10]

Residual inorganic and organic components produce a smear layer of debris on the surface of a tooth when it is prepared with the bur or any other instruments.[22] Elimination of the microorganisms in the smear layer should be performed before resin bonding.[22] The smear layer's attachment to the solid dentin and the smear plugs pushed into the dentinal tubules decide whether the smear layer can be bonded to the tooth structure, which is determined by the smear layer's attachment to the solid dentin.[23] Various surface treatment substances have been proposed to eliminate or alter the smear layer before applying GIC to lessen the smear layer's effect and increase bonding.[24] Glasspoole et al.[25] investigated the impacts of numerous surface treatment on BS of several GI cements to tooth enamel and they found that when compared to no pretreatment, phosphoric acid and polyacrylic acid conditioning enhanced the BS of GI materials to enamel.

CHX is a widely used antibacterial and disinfectant in dentistry prior to the placement of restorations.[26] In addition to its antibacterial properties, it was observed that applying 2% CHX to the dentin surface for 60 s reduced the collagenolytic activity of the dentin surface and had an inhibitory effect on the MMP enzyme.[27] Lugassy et al.[17] revealed in their study that 2% CHX, with its well-known added benefits, can be used as a dentine conditioning agent as to enhance bond strength of restorative materials.

As a deproteinizing agent, the proteolytic action of the NaOCl contains the fragmented long peptide chains and N-chloramines with terminal amine groups.[28],[29] Arias et al.[30] investigated the influence of a 10% NaOCl gel and 10% NaOCl solution on dentine bond strength of 4 different adhesive systems and revealed that the BS was unaffected by the 10% NaOCl gel. When compared to a NaOCl solution (10%), NaOCl gel (10%) was less successful at removing collagen. Nassif and El-Korashy[15] introduced NaOCl/phosphoric acid mixture as a new dentine conditioning agent and observed improved bond strength of adhesive material to dentin. Hypochlorous acid, sodium dihydrogen phosphate and unreacted phosphoric acid are produced when 5.25% NaOCl and 37% phosphoric acid interact. Because hypochlorous acid is unstable, it partially dissociates, releasing chlorine gas during the mixing process. Because of its quick dissociation, the residual hypochlorous acid has a faster deproteinizing impact than NaOCl. At the same time, the mixture's demineralizing capacity is maintained by the unreacted phosphoric acid. As a result, the proposed new conditioning mixture can etch and deproteinize at the same time.[15]

It has been emphasized that the stable substrate is not provided by smear layer for restorative material adherence and bonding to the tooth surface. This layer eventually dissolves under restorative material as a result of hydrolysis process, resulting in bacterial penetration, microleakage and pulp irritation.[13] Lugassy et al.[17] concluded in their study that with the use of 2% CHX digluconate there was reduced microleakage when it was compared to other conditioning agents. Many studies have demonstrated that by using various conditioners there is reduction in the microleakage and increases the BS of the GI restoration to tooth surfaces.[25],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35]

The findings of the present study indicate that the 50/50 volume% mixture of 5.25% NaOCl and 37% H3PO4 (Group 1) revealed a better bond strength with least microleakage of GIC restoration when it was compared to the other groups. In this study, greater microleakage was seen in the Group 4 (with no pretreatment) followed by Group 3 (pretreated with 10% Peracetic acid) then Group 2 (pretreated with 2% CHX) and then minimum in Group 1. The greater SBS was observed in Group 1 followed by Group 2, Group 3 and least was observed in Group 4.

These findings were similar to those of Nassif and El-Korashy,[15] Glasspoole et al.,[25] Yamamoto et al.,[36] Shashirekha et al.[10] and Fernandes et al.[37] as they concluded that preapplication of the conditioning agent improves the bond strength of GIC to dentine, but these findings were different from those of Perdigão et al.,[38] Mostafa and Nadia[39] and Bassi et al.[40] as they concluded that pretreatment of the dentin surfaces with the conditioning agents did not enhanced the bond strength significantly. In the case of microleakage, the findings were similar to those of Lugassy et al.[17] and Fumes et al.,[41] but were different from those of Shinohara et al.[42] as they concluded that the microleakage was increased along the dentin margins with the use of NaOCl as a dentin conditioning agent.

Because this was an in vitro study, microleakage and SBS tests are some of the laboratory procedures used to measure marginal adaptation, clinical performance in vivo may differ. In future, long term clinical studies are advocated to confirm the benefits of the above mentioned conditioning agents in the success of GI restorations.

Based on the observations of the present study it can be concluded that the 50/50 volume% mixture of 37% H3PO4 and 5.25% NaOCl, as it showed best result in the terms of enhancing SBS and least microleakage of GI restoration in comparison to other conditioning agents, can be used as a pretreatment conditioner before the placement of GIC restorations.


   Conclusions Top


The conclusions drawn from the present study are:

  1. Conditioning with 50/50 volume% mixture of 5.25% NaOCl/37% H3PO4, 2% CHX digluconate or 10% polyacrylic acid reduces cavosurface microleakage and enhances bond strength of GI restorations when compared to no conditioning at all
  2. Among the three conditioning regimes, 50/50 volume% mixture of 5.25% NaOCl/37% phosphoric acid proved to be superior when compared to 2% CHX digluconate and 10% polyacrylic acid, and the difference is statistically significant
  3. The combination of 5.25% NaOCl and 37% phosphoric acid can be used as a newer pretreatment modality under GI restorations.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Sturdevant CM, Roberson TM, Heymann HO. The Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. St. Louis: Mosby; 1995. p. 571-2.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Bollu IP, Hari A, Thumu J, Velagula LD, Bolla N, Varri S, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between nano-ionomer, giomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities- CLSM study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:ZC66-70.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Hilton TJ. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 1. Am J Dent 2002;15:198-210.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: Methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;84:118-32.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Wilson AD, Mclean JW. Glass ionomer cement. Quintessence Int 1988;6:83-93.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Meerbek BV, Landuyt KV, Muck JD. Bonding to enamel and dentin. In: Summit JB, Robbin JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS, editors. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. 3rd ed. Illinois, United States: Quintessence; 2006. p. 183-260.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. Adhesive restorative materials: A review. Aust Dent J 2004;49:112-21.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Charlton DG, Haveman CW. Dentin surface treatment and bond strength of glass ionomers. Am J Dent 1994;7:47-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Inoue S, Van Meerbeek B, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, et al. Effect of remaining dentin thickness and the use of conditioner on micro-tensile bond strength of a glass-ionomer adhesive. Dent Mater 2001;17:445-55.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Shashirekha G, Jena A, Hegde J. Bond strength of light activated glass ionomer with different conditioners on human dentin. Int J Sci Technol Res 2012;1:26-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Derkson GD, Pashley DH, Derkson ME. Microleakage measurement of selected restorative materials: A new in vitro method. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:435-40.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Yilmaz Y, Gurbuz T, Kocogullari ME. The influence of various conditioner agents on the interdiffusion zone and microleakage of a glass lonomer cement with a high viscosity in primary teeth. Oper Dent 2005;30:105-12.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Mazaheri R, Pishevar L, Shichani AV, Geravandi S. Effect of different cavity conditioners on microleakage of glass ionomer cement with a high viscosity in primary teeth. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2015;12:337-41.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Sano H, Yoshikawa T, Pereira PN, Kanemura N, Morigami M, Tagami J, et al. Long-term durability of dentin bonds made with a self-etching primer, in vivo. J Dent Res 1999;78:906-11.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Nassif MS, El-Korashy DI. Phosphoric acid/sodium hypochlorite mixture as dentin conditioner: A new approach. J Adhes Dent 2009;11:455-60.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Lee DW, Jung JE, Yang YM, Kim JG, Yi HK, Jeon JG. The antibacterial activity of chlorhexidine digluconate against Streptococcus mutans biofilms follows sigmoidal patterns. Eur J Oral Sci 2016;124:440-6.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Lugassy D, Segal P, Blumer S, Eger M, Shely A, Matalon S. Effect of two traditional polyacrylic acid conditioners and 2% chlorhexidine digluconate on cavosurface microleakage of glass ionomer restorations. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;42:287-91.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Aydın B, Pamir T, Baltaci A, Orman MN, Turk T. Effect of storage solutions on microhardness of crown enamel and dentin. Eur J Dent 2015;9:262-6.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO/Technical Specification 11405: Dental Materials – Testing of Adhesion to Tooth Structure; 2003. p. 1-16.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Davidović L, Slavoljub T, Mihael S, Slavoljub Z. Microleakage of glass ionomer cement restorations. Serb Dent J 2009;46:78-85.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Muhammad K, Raziq R, Linda B. Remediation of rhodamine B dye from aqueous solution using casuarina equisetifolia cone powder as a low-cost adsorbent. Adv Phys Org Chem 2016;10:1-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Summit JB, Robbins JW, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. 2nd ed. Illinois, United States: Quintessence Pub. Co.; 2001. p. 136-41.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Asmussen E, Munksgaard EC. Bonding of restorative resins to dentine: Status of dentine adhesives and impact on cavity design and filling techniques. Int Dent J 1988;38:97-104.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Tay FR, Smales RJ, Ngo H, Wei SH, Pashley DH. Effect of different conditioning protocols on adhesion of a GIC to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2001;3:153-67.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Glasspoole EA, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of glass ionomers to enamel. Dent Mater 2002;18:454-62.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Campos EA, Correr GM, Leonardi DP, Pizzatto E, Morais EC. Influence of chlorhexidine concentration on microtensile bond strength of contemporary adhesive systems. Braz Oral Res 2009;23:340-5.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Komori PC, Pashley DH, Tjäderhane L, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, de Goes MF, et al. Effect of 2% chlorhexidine digluconate on the bond strength to normal versus caries-affected dentin. Oper Dent 2009;34:157-65.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Barbosa SV, Safavi KE, Spångberg SW. Influence of sodium hypochlorite on the permeability and structure of cervical human dentine. Int Endod J 1994;27:309-12.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Wakabayashi Y, Kondou Y, Suzuki K, Yatani H, Yamashita A. Effect of dissolution of collagen on adhesion to dentin. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:302-6.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Arias VG, Bedran-de-Castro AK, Pimenta LA. Effects of sodium hypochlorite gel and sodium hypochlorite solution on dentin bond strength. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005;72:339-44.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Castro A, Feigal RE. Microleakage of a new improved glass ionomer restorative material in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 2002;24:23-8.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Di Nicoló R, Shintome LK, Myaki SI, Nagayassu MP. Bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement to primary dentin after cutting with different bur types and dentin conditioning. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15:459-64.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Tanumiharja M, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Microtensile bond strengths of glass ionomer (polyalkenoate) cements to dentine using four conditioners. J Dent 2000;28:361-6.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Hotz P, McLean JW, Sced I, Wilson AD. The bonding of glass ionomer cements to metal and tooth substrates. Br Dent J 1977;142:41-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Cortes O, Garcia-Godoy F, Boj JR. Bond strength of resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements after enamel etching. Am J Dent 1993;6:299-301.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Yamamoto K, Kojima H, Tsutsumi T, Oguchi H. Effects of tooth-conditioning agents on bond strength of a resin-modified glass-ionomer sealant to enamel. J Dent 2003;31:13-8.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Fernandes GL, Strazzi-Sahyon HB, Suzuki TY, Briso AL, Dos Santos PH. Influence of chlorhexidine gluconate on the immediate bond strength of a universal adhesive system on dentine subjected to different bonding protocols: An in vitro pilot study. Oral Health Prev Dent 2020;18:71-6.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Perdigão J, Lopes M, Geraldeli S, Lopes GC, García-Godoy F. Effect of a sodium hypochlorite gel on dentin bonding. Dent Mater 2000;16:311-23.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Mostafa A, Nadia A. Shear bond strength of chemically cured glass ionomer cement to dentin surfaces pretreated with different methods. Egypt Dent J 2000;46:2145-50.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Bassi JC, Tedesco TK, Raggio DP, Santos AM, Bianchi RM, de Sant'Anna GR. Is it necessary to pre-treat dentine before GIC restorations? Evidence from an in vitro study. Acta Odontol Latinoam 2020;33:27-32.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Fumes AC, Longo DL, De Rossi A, Fidalgo TK, de Paula E Silva FW, Borsatto MC, et al. Microleakage of sealants after phosphoric acid, Er: YAG laser and air abrasion enamel conditioning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;41:167-72.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Shinohara MS, Bedran-de-Castro AK, Amaral CM, Pimenta LA. The effect of sodium hypochlorite on microleakage of composite resin restorations using three adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent 2004;6:123-7.  Back to cited text no. 42
    


    Figures

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

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (1,739 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


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

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed338    
    Printed24    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded92    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


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