Citation Information :
Abraham D, Thomas AM, Chopra S, Koshy S. A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014; 7 (1):6-10.
Objective: To do a comparative study of microleakage of glass ionomer cement (GIC) and chitosan modified glass ionomer cement and evaluate which exhibited lesser microleakage.
Materials and methods: Sixty freshly extracted sound primary molar teeth were obtained. Two groups of samples were created for the study which comprised of group I (glass ionomer cement—GIC) and group II (Chitosan modified glass ionomer cement). Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces. All the tooth surfaces except the restoration and a 1 mm zone adjacent to its margins were covered with two coats of varnish. The specimens were then immersed in 2% basic fuschin dye solution for 24 hours. The teeth were sectioned into two halves buccolingually in an occlusoapical direction. Sections were viewed under stereomicroscope and the degree of microleakage was evaluated using specific scoring criteria. For comparative evaluation of microleakage scores between glass ionomer cement and chitosan modified cement, a nonparametric Mann-Whitney statistical analysis was done.
Results: Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between groups I and II with the p-value at >0.05.
Conclusion: Chitosan modified GIC holds great promise for general dentistry as a future restorative material with microleakage properties similar to or better than GIC.
How to cite this article: Abraham D, Thomas AM, Chopra S, Koshy S. A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement and Chitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7(1):6-10.
Kennedy, DB. The basis for paediatric operative dentistry. In: Curzon, MEJ.; Jessica, Roberts F.; Kennedy, DB., editors. Kennedy's paediatric operative dentistry. 4th ed. Oxford: Wright; 1996. p. 3-4.
Cho SY (Department of Health, Hong Kong), Cheng AC. A review of glass ionomer restorations in the primary dentition. J Can Dent Assoc 1999 Oct;65(9):491-495.
Frankenberger R(Polyclinic for Restorative Dentistry and Periodontics, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany), Sindel J, Kramer N. Viscous glass-ionomer cements: A new alternative to amalgam in the primary dentition? Quintessence Int 1997 Oct;28(10):667-676.
Frencken JE (Department of Global Oral Health, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, College of Dental Sciences, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. j. firstname.lastname@example.org), Wolke J. Clinical and SEM assessment of ART high-viscosity glass-ionomer sealants after 8 to 13 years in 4 teeth. J Dent 2010 Jan;38(1):59-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.09.004.
Petri DF, Donega J, Benassi AM, Bocangel JA (Instituto de Química, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. email@example.com). Preliminary study on chitosan modified glass ionomer restoratives. Dent Mater 2007 Aug;23(8):1004-1010. Epub 2006 Nov 13.
Kean T (Case Western Reserve University, Orthopaedics Department, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, USA. tom.kean@case. edu), Thanou M. Biodegradation, biodistribution and toxicity of chitosan. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2010 Jan 31;62(1):3-11. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2009.09.004. Epub 2009 Oct 1.
Limapornvanich A (Dental Unit, Yala Regional Hospital, Yala 95000, Thailand), Jitpukdeehodintra S, Hengtrakool C, Kedjarune-Leggat U. Bovine serum albumin release from novel chitosan-fluoroaluminosilicate glass ionomer cement: Stability and cytotoxicity studies. J Dent 2009 Sep;37(9):686-690. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.05.007. Epub 2009 May 14.
Suprabha BS, Sudha P, Vidya M. A comparative evaluation of sealing ability of restorative materials used for coronal sealing after root canal therapy J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2001 Dec;19(4):137-142.
Wilder AD Jr (Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, 307A Brauer Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7450, USA. aldridge_wilder@dentistry. unc.edu), Swift EJ, May KN, Thompson JY, McDougal RA. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. J Dent 2000 Jul;28(5):367-373.
Erikson HM, Pears G. In vitro caries related to marginal leakage around composite resin restoration. J Oral Rehabil 1978 Jan;5(1):15-20.
Chuang SF (Department of Operative Dentistry, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan City, Taiwan. firstname.lastname@example.org. edu.tw), Jin YT, Tsai PF, Wong TY. Effect of various surface protections on the margin microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent 2001 Sep;86(3):309-314.
Delme KI, Deman PJ, De Moor RJ. Microleakage of class V resin composite restorations after conventional and Er:YAG laser preparation. J Oral Rehabil 2005 Sep;32(9):676-685.
Mali P (Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, K.L.E.S.'s Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, Karnataka, India), Deshpande S, Singh A. Microleakage of restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2006 Mar;24(1):15-18.
Elsaka ES (Department of Dental Biomaterials, Mansoura University, Egypt. email@example.com). Antibacterial activity and adhesive properties of a chitosan-containing dental adhesive. Quintessence Int 2012 Jul-Aug;43(7):603-613.
Berger J (School of Pharmacy, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland), Reist M, Mayer JM, Felt O, Peppas NA, Gurny R. Structure and interactions in covalently and ionically crosslinked chitosan hydrogels for biomedical applications. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2004 Jan;57(1):19-34.