Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study

Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Surej Unnikrishnan [verfasserIn] Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy [verfasserIn] C Nagarathna [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2019

Schlagwörter:	Adhesion adhesive restorative materials conditioning agents smear layer

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Indian Journal of Dental Research - Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2007, 30(2019), 2, Seite 267-272
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:30 ; year:2019 ; number:2 ; pages:267-272

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ006202640

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ006202640
003	DE-627
005	20230502073928.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230225s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ006202640
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJd7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RK1-715
100	0		\|a Surej Unnikrishnan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study
264		1	\|c 2019
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion.
650		4	\|a Adhesion
650		4	\|a adhesive restorative materials
650		4	\|a conditioning agents
650		4	\|a smear layer
653		0	\|a Dentistry
700	0		\|a Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a C Nagarathna \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Indian Journal of Dental Research \|d Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2007 \|g 30(2019), 2, Seite 267-272 \|w (DE-627)545783836 \|w (DE-600)2388222-0 \|x 19983603 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:30 \|g year:2019 \|g number:2 \|g pages:267-272
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/d7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2019;volume=30;issue=2;spage=267;epage=272;aulast=Unnikrishnan \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9290 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3603 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 30 \|j 2019 \|e 2 \|h 267-272

Indexfelder

author_variant	s u su n h k nhk c n cn
matchkey_str	article:19983603:2019----::agnlirlaaeflsinmreetihwdfeetaiyodtoesnrm
hierarchy_sort_str	2019
callnumber-subject-code	RK
publishDate	2019
allfields	10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ006202640 (DE-599)DOAJd7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Surej Unnikrishnan verfasserin aut Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion. Adhesion adhesive restorative materials conditioning agents smear layer Dentistry Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy verfasserin aut C Nagarathna verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Dental Research Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2007 30(2019), 2, Seite 267-272 (DE-627)545783836 (DE-600)2388222-0 19983603 nnns volume:30 year:2019 number:2 pages:267-272 https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb kostenfrei http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2019;volume=30;issue=2;spage=267;epage=272;aulast=Unnikrishnan kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9290 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3603 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 30 2019 2 267-272
spelling	10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ006202640 (DE-599)DOAJd7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Surej Unnikrishnan verfasserin aut Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion. Adhesion adhesive restorative materials conditioning agents smear layer Dentistry Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy verfasserin aut C Nagarathna verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Dental Research Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2007 30(2019), 2, Seite 267-272 (DE-627)545783836 (DE-600)2388222-0 19983603 nnns volume:30 year:2019 number:2 pages:267-272 https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb kostenfrei http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2019;volume=30;issue=2;spage=267;epage=272;aulast=Unnikrishnan kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9290 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3603 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 30 2019 2 267-272
allfields_unstemmed	10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ006202640 (DE-599)DOAJd7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Surej Unnikrishnan verfasserin aut Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion. Adhesion adhesive restorative materials conditioning agents smear layer Dentistry Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy verfasserin aut C Nagarathna verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Dental Research Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2007 30(2019), 2, Seite 267-272 (DE-627)545783836 (DE-600)2388222-0 19983603 nnns volume:30 year:2019 number:2 pages:267-272 https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb kostenfrei http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2019;volume=30;issue=2;spage=267;epage=272;aulast=Unnikrishnan kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9290 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3603 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 30 2019 2 267-272
allfieldsGer	10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ006202640 (DE-599)DOAJd7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Surej Unnikrishnan verfasserin aut Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion. Adhesion adhesive restorative materials conditioning agents smear layer Dentistry Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy verfasserin aut C Nagarathna verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Dental Research Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2007 30(2019), 2, Seite 267-272 (DE-627)545783836 (DE-600)2388222-0 19983603 nnns volume:30 year:2019 number:2 pages:267-272 https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb kostenfrei http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2019;volume=30;issue=2;spage=267;epage=272;aulast=Unnikrishnan kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9290 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3603 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 30 2019 2 267-272
allfieldsSound	10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ006202640 (DE-599)DOAJd7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Surej Unnikrishnan verfasserin aut Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion. Adhesion adhesive restorative materials conditioning agents smear layer Dentistry Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy verfasserin aut C Nagarathna verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Dental Research Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2007 30(2019), 2, Seite 267-272 (DE-627)545783836 (DE-600)2388222-0 19983603 nnns volume:30 year:2019 number:2 pages:267-272 https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb kostenfrei http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2019;volume=30;issue=2;spage=267;epage=272;aulast=Unnikrishnan kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9290 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3603 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 30 2019 2 267-272
language	English
source	In Indian Journal of Dental Research 30(2019), 2, Seite 267-272 volume:30 year:2019 number:2 pages:267-272
sourceStr	In Indian Journal of Dental Research 30(2019), 2, Seite 267-272 volume:30 year:2019 number:2 pages:267-272
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Adhesion adhesive restorative materials conditioning agents smear layer Dentistry
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Indian Journal of Dental Research
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Surej Unnikrishnan @@aut@@ Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy @@aut@@ C Nagarathna @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2019-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	545783836
id	DOAJ006202640
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ006202640</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502073928.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ006202640</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJd7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RK1-715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Surej Unnikrishnan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Adhesion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">adhesive restorative materials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">conditioning agents</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">smear layer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">C Nagarathna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Indian Journal of Dental Research</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">30(2019), 2, Seite 267-272</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)545783836</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2388222-0</subfield><subfield code="x">19983603</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:30</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:267-272</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/d7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2019;volume=30;issue=2;spage=267;epage=272;aulast=Unnikrishnan</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9290</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3603</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">30</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="h">267-272</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Surej Unnikrishnan
spellingShingle	Surej Unnikrishnan misc RK1-715 misc Adhesion misc adhesive restorative materials misc conditioning agents misc smear layer misc Dentistry Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study
authorStr	Surej Unnikrishnan
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)545783836
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RK1-715
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	19983603
topic_title	RK1-715 Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study Adhesion adhesive restorative materials conditioning agents smear layer
topic	misc RK1-715 misc Adhesion misc adhesive restorative materials misc conditioning agents misc smear layer misc Dentistry
topic_unstemmed	misc RK1-715 misc Adhesion misc adhesive restorative materials misc conditioning agents misc smear layer misc Dentistry
topic_browse	misc RK1-715 misc Adhesion misc adhesive restorative materials misc conditioning agents misc smear layer misc Dentistry
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Indian Journal of Dental Research
hierarchy_parent_id	545783836
hierarchy_top_title	Indian Journal of Dental Research
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)545783836 (DE-600)2388222-0
title	Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ006202640 (DE-599)DOAJd7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb
title_full	Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study
author_sort	Surej Unnikrishnan
journal	Indian Journal of Dental Research
journalStr	Indian Journal of Dental Research
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2019
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	267
author_browse	Surej Unnikrishnan Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy C Nagarathna
container_volume	30
class	RK1-715
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Surej Unnikrishnan
doi_str_mv	10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – an in vitro study
callnumber	RK1-715
title_auth	Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study
abstract	Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion.
abstractGer	Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion.
abstract_unstemmed	Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	2
title_short	Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study
url	https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17 https://doaj.org/article/d7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2019;volume=30;issue=2;spage=267;epage=272;aulast=Unnikrishnan https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9290 https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3603
remote_bool	true
author2	Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy C Nagarathna
author2Str	Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy C Nagarathna
ppnlink	545783836
callnumber-subject	RK - Dentistry
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17
callnumber-a	RK1-715
up_date	2024-07-03T19:34:30.288Z
_version_	1803587703580655616
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ006202640</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502073928.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ006202640</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJd7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RK1-715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Surej Unnikrishnan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background and Objective: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most commonly used restorative material in pediatric dentistry. They have numerous advantages; however, they show some marginal microleakage at the restoration–tooth interface. Various conditioning agents have been tested for alteration or dissolution of smear layer which has been attributed to the occurrence of microleakage; however, very limited studies have been done using primary teeth. Aims: To evaluate and compare the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA on marginal microleakage of high-viscosity GIC. Settings and Design: Experimental, in vitro study. Methodology: Class V cavities of standardized dimensions were prepared on 60 primary anterior teeth and were randomly divided into three groups. Except Group I, the cavities of Groups II and III were conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and 17% EDTA, respectively. All the 60 teeth were then restored with high-viscosity GIC. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24 h. The teeth were removed from the stain, rinsed, and sectioned buccolingually and were observed under stereomicroscope at 30× to score the marginal microleakage. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney post hoc analysis were used to compare the mean marginal leakage scores between the three study groups. Results: Statistical significance difference was found between all the three groups (P < 0.05). The mean marginal microleakage score was maximum for Group I (control group; 3.00), whereas it was the least for Group II (1.30) where 10% polyacrylic was used for conditioning the cavity surface. Conclusion: Among the study groups, none of them was completely devoid of microleakage in all its samples. 10% polyacrylic acid emerged as a better conditioning agent when compared with 17% EDTA in altering or removing the smear layer thereby resulting in better adhesion.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Adhesion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">adhesive restorative materials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">conditioning agents</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">smear layer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Navin Hadadi Krishnamurthy</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">C Nagarathna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Indian Journal of Dental Research</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">30(2019), 2, Seite 267-272</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)545783836</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2388222-0</subfield><subfield code="x">19983603</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:30</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:267-272</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/d7c30a997d444dffa945515dc13e98fb</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2019;volume=30;issue=2;spage=267;epage=272;aulast=Unnikrishnan</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9290</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3603</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">30</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="h">267-272</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3988304

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – An in vitro study

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?