Effect of Two Disinfecting Agents on the Microleakage of Resin-Based Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Social Determinants of Oral Health Research Center, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

2 Postgraduate Student of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

3 Dentist, Yazd, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Disinfection of the cavity preparation after caries excavation can lead to the elimination of bacterial remnants that can be responsible for recurrent caries, postoperative sensitivity, and failure of the restoration. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of two disinfectants on microleakage of composite restorations in primary teeth. Methods:In this experimental study, 40 extracted primary canine teeth without caries were randomly divided into four groups of 10 teeth, namely control group (1), pretreatment group with chlorhexidine 2% (2), pretreatment group with sodium hypochlorite 2/5% (3), and pretreatment group with sodium hypochlorite 5% (4). In addition, class V cavities were prepared on all teeth. The cavities were then restored with composite. The teeth were thermocycled and immersed in 2% methylene blue for 24h. Microleakage was assessed by dye penetration in the incisal and gingival surface of the teeth using stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed in SPSS software (version 18) through Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: According to the results, the difference among groups was significant (P<0/001). The pair-wise comparison showed significant differences between groups 1 and 2; however, no difference was observed between pretreatment groups with sodium hypochlorite 5% and 2/5%. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found in terms of incisal and gingival surfaces. Conclusion:Pretreatment with chlorhexidine and sodium hypochlorite increased microleakage in composite restorations in primary teeth.
 
 

Keywords


Introduction

Today, dental caries is among the most common problems in dentistry. Moreover, it has been reported that recurrent carries are the major problems after dental restorations (1). In recent years, there has been an increase in the utilization of tooth-colored restorative materials, such as resin-based composites, glass ionomers, and the combination of both in primary teeth. Indirect pulp therapy is a method of treatment for deep carious lesions without causing degeneration of the pulp.  The caries lesion is completely removed; however, the affected dentin above the pulp is retained in this treatment (2).

Research has shown that bacteria may proliferate in the smear layer and release toxins that can cause inflammation of the pulp. The topic being discussed currently is to integrate antibacterial agents into restorative material or water to eliminate the bacteria that exist in the cavity wall. Therefore, the use of antimicrobial solutions may reduce the incidence of post restorative sensitization (3). However, the effect of antibacterial agents on restorative material still raises some concern for dentists (4). Chlorhexidine gluconate is a chlorine containing bisphenol which has been used as a safe and wide spectrum disinfectant for years (3). Chlorhexidine has a broad spectrum effect on both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. Research has shown that chlorhexidine reduces the bacterial load in saliva and plaque as well as Streptococcus mutans levels in occlusal grooves and root surfaces (5).

Recently, it has been shown that chlorhexidine has an inhibitory effect on the endogen collagen degradation process in the dentin. Considering recent and limited in vivo and in vitro studies in this field, chlorhexidine can be used with the etching and rinse procedure as a disinfectant to enhance bond endurance. However, long term clinical studies are required to verify this (5). Sodium hypochlorite is an effective organic solution that is used vastly in clinical dentistry as a detergent. Sodium hypochlorite was first employed in the 1920s as an antimicrobial antiseptic for endodontic treatment.  Sodium hypochlorite breaks down to form sodium chloride and oxygen as soon as it comes into contact with dentin which starts the oxidation process in the dentin matrix. Studies have been proven sodium hypochlorite’s antibacterial and tissue degrading effects on remnant microbes (4).

Microleakage is a dynamic process which allows the exchange of liquid, ions, molecule, debris, and microbial products across the tooth-restoration interface. Microleakage leads to post-operative sensitization of the tooth, discoloration of restoration margins, recurrent caries, and pulp damage (6). Different studies have expressed different opinions and results regarding the effect of antibacterial substances on the bonding of restorative material to dentin.

 In a study conducted by Memarpour et al. (2), it was found that adding chlorhexidine to resin-based composite restorations increased microleakage.

This study was carried out to analyze the effects of antibacterial material on the microleakage resin-based composite restorations in deciduous teeth.

 

Materials and Methods

In this experimental study, 40 primary canines without caries were collected from patients underwent orthodontic treatment. The teeth were cleaned using non-fluoride pumice and immersed in 0.1 % Chloramine T solution for 2 weeks for disinfection. Then, the teeth were kept in distilled water during the study.

Standard class V preparations (2.5mm width, 3mm height, and 1mm depth) were performed on the buccal surface adjacent on the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) using a fissure diamond bur (008, Tizkavan Co., Iran) and high-speed handpiece with water coolant. No bevel was made in the cavity preparation. The incisal margin was placed on enamel and the gingival margin on cementum.

The teeth were then randomly allocated into four groups of 10 teeth, and each group was specified with a certain antibacterial agent. Group 1 (control group) was etched with 37% phosphoric acid (Diadent, Korea) for 15 seconds and then rinsed for 15 seconds and dried with a low-pressure air syringe. Two layers of the etch and rinse Adper single bond 2 (3M, ESPE, USA) as well as adhesive were applied and thinned with low-pressure air syringe cured for 20 sec with a LED light cure system (Woodpecker, China) with an intensity of 600 mW/cm2. The teeth were restored using resin-based composite (Z250, 3M, ESPE, USA) and cured for 40 seconds.
The light intensity was measured using a light intensity meter.

The cavities in group 2 were etched, rinsed, and dried similar to the former group. Then, a thin layer of 2% non-alcoholic chlorhexidine (Maquira, Brazil) was applied for 60 seconds. After drying with air for 10 seconds, the cavity was restored after bonding using resin-based composite, similar to group 1.

Similar cavity preparation was applied to group 3 and the cavities were etched, rinsed, and dried, subsequently, a thin layer of 2.5 % sodium hypochlorite was applied for 15 seconds and then dried with air. After bonding was applied, the cavity was restored using resin-based composite in a similar procedure to that in previous groups.

Group 4 was subjected to similar steps used in previous groups. A thin layer of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite was applied after etching, rinsing, and drying. After drying with air for 10 seconds, the teeth were restored using the same procedure applied to previous groups. All teeth were stored in distilled water at room temperature and thermocycled (Vafayi, Iran) 5°C and 55°C for 5000 cycles with a 30-second dwell timethermocycling.( After thermocycling, the samples from each group were prepared to be placed in staining solutions as follows:

The apexes of the teeth were sealed with sticky wax, and the root and crown surfaces were covered with 2 layers of nail polish at 1 mm margin of the cavity to prevent microleakage from other areas and interfering with the area under study.  All the teeth were then separately immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for staining and kept at room temperature for 24 h. The samples were rinsed and cut faciolingually from the middle of the restoration using a diamond disc and water coolant) 2). Two examiners calibrated with each other examined the linear penetration of the stain under a microscope (ZTX-3E, China) with a magnification of 20x. In order to increase the accuracy of the results, both segments of each tooth were examined, and the highest value was reported as the microleakage score.

The scoring system for microleakage is as follows:

Score 0: No penetration

Score 1: Penetration up to 1/3 of the cavity depth

Score 2: Penetration up to 2/3 of the cavity depth

Score 3: Complete penetration of the cavity depth but not the axial wall

Score 4: Penetration of stain into the axial wall.

 

Data were analyzed in SPSS software (version 18) through Kruskal-Wallis test for all groups and Mann-Whitney U test for paired difference test with a pre-set significance level of 0.05.

 

 

 

 

Results

This study was conducted on 40 extracted primary canines without caries which were divided into four groups.

Each sample was examined regarding incisal and gingival surfaces by two observers. Statistical analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two examiners (P>0.05).

The normality of the data was tested using Shapiro-Wilk test and the results showed the non-normal distribution of data in the test groups and both cervical and incisal surfaces (P<0.001).Therefore, non-parametric tests were used in this study.

Comparison of the mean values of composite microleakage showed a statistically significant difference among the four groups in terms of both gingival and incisal surfaces (Tables I, II). The highest and lowest levels of microleakage were observed in 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and the control group, respectively, regarding both gingival and incisal surfaces. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the incisal and gingival levels regarding the mean of microleakage in any of the groups (Table III). The total mean values of microleakage in the gingival and incisal surfaces were 2.60±1.61 and 2.40±1.90, respectively. In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed regarding the comparison of mean values of microleakage in these surfaces (P=0.715).

Table IV summarizes the results obtained from the paired difference tests. According to the results, there was a significant difference between the control group and the other three groups regarding chlorhexidine, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite, and 5% sodium hypochlorite in both gingival and incisal surfaces. Consequently, the microleakage of all three groups was higher than that in the control group. However, there was no significant difference among the three groups in terms of the abovementioned variables.

 

 

 

 

Table I. The mean values of microleakage in four groups regarding incisal surface

Microleakage value

 Group

Number of samples

   Mean

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

P-value

2% chlorhexidine

10

2.70

1.89

0

4

 

 

0.004

5% sodium hypochlorite

10

2.60

1.84

0

4

2.5% sodium hypochlorite

10

3.60

1.26

0

4

Control

10

0.70

1.49

0

4

Total

40

2.40

1.90

0

4

 

 

 

 

Table II. The mean values of microleakage in four groups regarding gingival surface

Microleakage value Group

Number of samples

Mean

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

 

P-value

2% chlorhexidine

10

3.10

1.66

0

4

 

 

0.007

5% sodium hypochlorite

10

3.00

1.25

0

4

2.5% sodium hypochlorite

10

3.20

1.69

0

4

Control

10

1.10

0.88

0

3

Total

40

2.60

1.61

0

4

 

 

 

 

Microleakage value

 

Group

         Incisal

      Gingival

P-value

Mean

Standard deviation

Mean

Standard deviation

2%chlorhexidine

2.7

1.89

3.1

1.66

0.622

5%sodium hypochlorite

2.6

1.84

3

1.25

0.968

2.5%sodium hypochlorite

3.6

1.26

3.2

1.69

0.542

Control

0.7

1.49

1.1

0.88

0.065

Total

2.4

1.90

2.6

1.61

0.715

Table III. Comparison of the mean microleakage in four groups regarding the incisal and gingival levels

 

 

 

 

Table IV. Paired difference test of groups with each other in terms of microleakage value

First group

Second group

P-value (Incisal)

P-value (Gingival)

Control

Chlorhexidine

0.019

0.013

2.5% Sodium hypochlorite

0.001

0.011

5% Sodium hypochlorite

0.026

0.004

Chlorhexidine

2.5% Sodium hypochlorite

0.147

0.689

5% Sodium hypochlorite

0.768

0.357

2.5% sodium hypochlorite

5% Sodium hypochlorite

0.075

0.198

            

 

 

 

 


Discussion

This study investigated the microleakage of resin-based composite restorations in deciduous teeth using two types of antibacterial agents, namely chlorhexidine and sodium hypochlorite. The microleakage was tested utilizing the dye penetration method. Dye penetration is the most common method for this purpose which has advantages, such as low cost and easy methodology. However, and disadvantages include subjective analysis of results and the low molecular weight of the d

  1. 1.       Siso HS, Kustarci A, Goktolga EG. Microleakage in resin composite restorations after antimicrobial pre-treatments: effect of KTP laser, chlorhexidine gluconate and Clearfil Protect Bond. Oper Dent. 2009;34(3): 321-327.
  2. 2.       Memarpour M, Shafiei F, Moradian M. Effects of disinfectant agents on microleakage in primary tooth-colored restorations: an in vitro study. J Dent Child (Chic). 2014;81(2): 56-62.
  3. 3.       Kapdan A, Öztaş N. Effects of chlorhexidine and gaseous ozone on microleakage and on the bond strength of dentin bonding agents with compomer restoration on primary teeth. J Dent Sci. 2015;10(1): 46-54.
  4. 4.       Bin-Shuwaish MS. Effects and Effectiveness of Cavity Disinfectants in Operative Dentistry: A Literature Review. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016 ;17 (10): 867-879.
  5. 5.       Shafiei F, Memarpour M. Antibacterial activity in adhesive dentistry: a literature review. Gen Dent. 2012;60(6): e346-e356.
  6. 6.       Bahrololoomi Z, Razavi F, Soleymani AA. Comparison of Micro-Leakage from Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations in Cavities Prepared by Er:YAG (Erbium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet) Laser and Conventional Method in Primary Teeth. J Lasers Med Sci. 2014;5(4): 183-187.
  7. 7.       Vieira Rde S, da Silva IA, Jr. Bond strength to primary tooth dentin following disinfection with a chlorhexidine solution: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent. 2003;25(1): 49-52.
  8. 8.       Tulunoglu O, Ayhan H, Olmez A, Bodur H. The effect of cavity disinfectants on microleakage in dentin bonding systems. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1998 ; 22(4): 299-305.
  9. 9.       Ersin NK, Aykut A, Candan U, Oncag O, Eronat C, Kose T. The effect of a chlorhexidine containing cavity disinfectant on the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement following ART: 24-month results. Am J Dent. 2008;21(1):
    39-43.
  10. 10.    de Castro FL, de Andrade MF, Duarte Junior SL, Vaz LG, Ahid FJ. Effect of 2% chlorhexidine on microtensile bond strength of composite to dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2003;5(2): 129-138.
  11. 11.    Soares CJ, Pereira CA, Pereira JC, Santana FR, do Prado CJ. Effect of chlorhexidine application on microtensile bond strength to dentin. Oper Dent. 2008;33(2): 183-188.
  12. 12.    Breschi L, Cammelli F, Visintini E, Mazzoni A, Vita F, Carrilho M, et al. Influence of chlorhexidine concentration on the durability of etch-and-rinse dentin bonds: a 12-month in vitro study. J Adhes Dent. 2009;11(3): 191-198.
  13. 13.    Manfro AR, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Imparato JC, Raggio DP. Effect of different concentrations of chlorhexidine on bond strength of primary dentin. Pediatr Dent. 2012;34(2): e11-15.
  14. 14.    Ramezanian Nik I, Baradaran Naseri E, Majidinia S, Ramezanian Nik S, Jafari Giv M. Effect of Chlorhexidine and Ethanol on Microleakage of Composite Resin Restoration to Dentine. Chin J Dent Res. 2017;20(3): 161-168.
  15. 15.    Mathew SM, Thomas AM, Koshy G, Dua K. Evaluation of the Microleakage of Chlorhexidine-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013;6(1): 7-11.
  16. 16.    Ricci HA, Sanabe ME, de Souza Costa CA, Pashley DH, Hebling J. Chlorhexidine increases the longevity of in vivo resin-dentin bonds. Eur J Oral Sci. 2010;118(4): 411-416.
  17. 17.    Hiraishi N, Yiu CK, King NM, Tay FR. Effect of 2% chlorhexidine on dentin microtensile bond strengths and nanoleakage of luting cements. J Dent. 2009;37(6): 440-448.
  18. 18.    Leitune VC, Portella FF, Bohn PV, Collares FM, Samuel SM. Influence of chlorhexidine application on longitudinal adhesive bond strength in deciduous teeth. Braz Oral Res. 2011;25(5): 388-392.
  19. 19.    Sung EC, Chan SM, Tai ET, Caputo AA. Effects of various irrigation solutions on microleakage of class V composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91(3): 265-267.
  20. 20.    Salama F, Balto H, Al-Yahya F, Al-Mofareh S. The effect of cavity disinfectants on microleakage of composite restorations in primary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2015;16(4): 295-300.
  21. 21.    Trowbridge HO. Model systems for determining biologic effects of microleakage. Oper Dent .1987;12(4): 164-172.