Effect of Two Traditional Polyacrylic Acid Conditioners and 2% Chlorhexidine Digluconate on Cavosurface Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Restorations

Objectives: A lack of appropriate adhesiveness is one of the biggest problems in restorative dentistry today and the main cause of microleakage. This is especially true in pediatric dentistry where moisture control is more difficult to achieve. Glass ionomer restorative materials increase adhesion and decrease microleakage given their chemical adhesion to the remaining tooth substance. Pretreatment improves the adhesion quality. The aim of this study was to assess the microleakage of Glass ionomer restorative materials following application of 20% polyacrylic acid, 10% polyacrylic acid or 2% chlorhexidine digluconate in Class V cavities. Study design: Two Class V preparations were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 24 extracted human molars. The gingival wall was set below or above the CEJ. The teeth were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 was treated with 20% polyacrylic acid or 10% polyacrylic acid. Group 2 was treated with 10% polyacrylic acid or 2% chlorhexidine digluconate. Microleakage was evaluated using a light–reflecting stereomicroscope and stain penetration test. Results: Two percent chlorhexidine digluconate was as efficient as the other conditioners. No statistically significant differences were found among the three types of conditioners. Dye penetration was significantly greater into dentin than into enamel among all three conditioners in both groups (P<0.001). Conclusion: Two percent chlorhexidine digluconate, with its known added advantages, can be used as a pretreatment conditioner in GI restorations.

GI restorations, microleakage, polyacrylic acid conditioner, 2% chlorhexidine digluconate

1.Sturdevant CM, Roberson TM, Heymann HO. The art and science of operative dentistry, MOSBY. St. Louis; 571-572, 1995.

2. Bollu IP, Hari A, Thumu J, Velagula LD, Bolla N, Varri S, Kasaraneni S, Nalli SV Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage Between Nano-Ionomer, Glass iomer and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Class V Cavities- CLSM Study.. J Clin Diagn Res. 10: 66-70,2016.

3. Hilton TJ. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 1. Am J Dent. 15:198-210, 2002.

4. Baygin O, Korkmaz F.M, Arslan I Effects of different types of adhesive systems on the microleakage of compomer restorations in class V cavities prepared by Er, Cr: YSGG laser in primary teeth. Dent Mater. 3: 206-214, 2012.

5. Derkson G.D, Pashely D.H, Derkson M.E. Microleakage measurement of selected restorative materials: A new in vitro method. J Prosthet Dent. 56:435-440, 1986.

6. Dennison B,J , Sarrett D.C. Prediction and diagnosis of clinical outcomes affecting restoration margins. J Oral Rehab. 39 301-318, 2012.

7. Davidovic L, Tomic S, Stanojevic M, Zivkovic S. Microleakage of glass ionomer cement restorations. Serbian Dent. J. 56: 78-85, 2009.

8. Munck J.D, Landuyt K.V, Peumas M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Meerbeek B.V. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: Methods and results. J Dent Res. 84:118-132, 2005.

9. Glasspoole E. A, Erickson R. L, Davidson C. L. Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of glass ionomers to enamel. Dent Mater. 8: 454-462, 2002.

10. Wilson A.D, Mclean J,W. Glass ionomer cement . Quintessence Int. 6: 83-93,1988.

11. Tyas M.J, Burrow M.F (2004) Adhesive restorative materials: A review. Austral Dent J. 49:112-121, 1988.

12. Meerbek B.V, L, Landuyt K.V, Muck J.D.: Bonding to enamel and dentin. In: Summit JB, Robbin J.W, Hilton T.J, Schwartz R.S, Eds. Fundamentals of operative dentistry. A contemporary approach, 3rd ed, Quintessence., 183-260, 2006.

13. Shashirekha G, Jena A, Hegda J.: Bond strength of light activated glass ionomer with different conditioners on human dentin. Inter J Scien and Tech Reasch. 1:26-29, 2012.

14.Powis D.R, Folleras T, Merson S.A, Wilson A.D.: Improved adhesion of a glass ionomer cement to dentin and enamel. J Dent Res. 61: 1416-1422, 1982.

15. Bishara S.E, Vonwald L, Laffon F.L, Jakobsen J.R.: Effect of changing enamel conditioner concentration on the shear bond strength of a resinmodified glass ionomer adhesive. Dentofacial Orthop. 118: 311- 316, 2000. 16. Tanumiharja M, Burrow M.F, Cimmino A, Tyas M.J.: The evaluation of four conditioners for glass ionomer cements using field emission scanningelectron microscopy. J of Dent. 29: 131- 138, 2001.

17. Hassan M, Badr N.A.: Shear bond strength of chemically cured glass ionomer cement to dentin surfaces pretreated with different methods. Egyptian Dent J. 46: 2145, 2000.

18. Charlton D.G, Haveman C.W.: Dentin surface treatment and bond strength of glass ionomers. Amer J Dent. 7: 47-49, 1994.

19. Inoue S, Van Meerbeek B, Abe Y.: Effect of remaining dentin thickness and the use of conditioner on microtensile bond strength of a glass ionomer adhesive. Dent Mater. 17: 445-455, 2001.

20. Wilson A.D, Prosser H.J, Powis D.R.: Mechanism of adhesion of polyelectrolyte cements to hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res. 62: 590-592, 1983.

21. Mount G.J.: Glass ionomer cements: past, present and future. Oper Dent. 19: 82-90, 1994.

22. Wilson A.D, Mclean J.W. Glass ionomer cement. Quintessence Publishing. 8: 125, 1988.

23.Sennou H, Lebugle A, Gregorie G.: X ray photoelectron spectroscopy study of the dentin glass ionomer cement interface. Dent Mater. 15: 229-237, 1999.

24. Ishioka S, Caputo A.: Interactions between the dentinal smear layer and composite bond strengths. J Prosthet Dent. 61: 180, 1989.

25.Powis D.R, Folleras T, Merson S.A.: Improved adhesion of a glass ionomer cement to dentin and enamel. J Dent Res. 61: 1416-1422, 1982.

26. Hajizadeh H, Ghavamnasiri M, Namazikhah M.S, Majidinia S, Bagheri M.: Effect of different conditioning protocols on the adhesion of a glass ionomer cement to dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract. 10: 9-16, 2009.

27. Mauro S.J, Sundfeld R.H, Bedran- Russo A.K.B, Fraga B.ALF.: Bond strength of – resin modified glass ionomer to dentin: the effect of dentin surface treatment. J Minim Interv Dent . 2: 45-53, 2009.

28. Hamama H.H, Burrow M.F, Yiu C.: Effect of dentin conditioning on adhesion of resin- modified glass ionomer adhesives. Austr Dent J. 59:193-200, 2014.

29. Gwinnett A.J.: Altered tissue contribution to interface bond strength with acid conditioned dentin. Am J Dent. 1994; 75: 243-246. 30. 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: 440-446

31. Sano H, Yoshikawa T, Pereira P.N, Kanemura N, Morigami M, Tagami J, Pashely D.H.: Long term durability of dentin bonds made with a selfetching primer, in vivo. J Dent Res. 78: 906-911, 1999.

32. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H.: In vivo degradation of resin- dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res. 79: 1385-1391, 2000.

33. Pashley D.H, Tay F.R, Yiu C, Hashimoto M, Breschi L, Carvalho R.M, Ito S.:Collagen degradation by host- derived enzymes during aging . J Dent Res. 83: 216-221, 2004.

34. Martin De Las H.S, Valenzuela A, Overall C.M.: The matrix metalloproteinase gelatinase A in human dentine. Arch Oral Biolog. 45: 757-765, 2000.

35. Gendron R, Grenier D, Sorsa T, Mayrand D.: Inhibition of the activities of matrix metalloproteinaises 2, 8 and 9 by chlorhexidine.Clin and Diag Labor Immun. 6: 437-439, 1999.