Effects of Antibacterial Disinfectants and Adhesive Application Modes on Microleakage

Yazıcıoğlu Pirpir Y. H., Çetin Tuncer N., Barutçugil Ç.

7'th International Congress on Adhesive Dentistry (IAD), Konya, Turkey, 1 - 03 June 2023, pp.109

  • Publication Type: Conference Paper / Summary Text
  • City: Konya
  • Country: Turkey
  • Page Numbers: pp.109
  • Akdeniz University Affiliated: Yes


Introduction:The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different antibacterial disinfectants and application modes on the microleakage of a universal adhesive bonded to Class V cavities. Materıals And Methods: Class V cavities were prepared in 50 sound premolars with enamel occlusal margins (OM) and dentin cervical margins (CM). Teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups; G1: Control, G2: 970 nm DiodeLaser (SiroLaser Xtend, Dentsply Sirona), G3: 2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate (Microvem, Altun Sterlizasyon), G4: AloeVera and Propolis Gel (Forever Aloe Gel, Forever Living Products) and G5: 0.2% Hyaluronic acid (Gengigel, Farmalink). After, GPremioBond (GC Europe), a universal adhesive, was applied with etch&rinse (EAR) or self-etch (SE) mode, cavities were restored. Then, the teeth were stored at 37°C for 24 hours, followed by a thermocycling for 1000 cycles (5 °C/55 °C). The tooth surfaces were coated with a nail varnish and stored in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours. The teeth were then rinsed, air-dried. Two longitudinal sections in the bucco-lingual were taken for each tooth, resulting in a total of 100 sections. The sections were evaluated under a light microscope at 50x at both OM and CM, and the furthest point of dye penetration was recorded using a scoring system. Results: Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests were used to analyze the data (p<0.05). In OM, although there was no difference between the disinfection methods in SE mode (p=0.77), Group 5 was different from the other groups in EAR mode (p=0.30). Furthermore, there was a statistical difference between SE and EAR modes in Groups 1, 3 and 4 (p<0.05). Also in CM, there was no difference between disinfectant applications in both SE and EAR modes (p>0.05) and there was a difference between SE and EAR modes in all groups (p<0.05). Conclusıon: None of the disinfectant solutions were able to prevent dye penetration, particularly in CM. In the CM, dye penetration was observed at higher scores than in the OM. In addition, the adhesives in EAR mode on the OM that on the enamel and in SE mode on the CM that on the dentin can be recommended independently of disinfection applications. Keywords: Adhesion, Disinfection, Microleakage, Laser