The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Marginal Integrity of Composite Restoration with and without Surface Pretreatment by Gold and Silver Nanoparticles vs Chlorhexidine: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Aya AEM Nemt-Allah, Shereen Hafez Ibrahim, Amira F El-Zoghby

Keywords : Chlorhexidine, Marginal adaptation, Marginal staining, NanoCare Gold, Postoperative sensitivity

Citation Information : Nemt-Allah AA, Ibrahim SH, El-Zoghby AF. Marginal Integrity of Composite Restoration with and without Surface Pretreatment by Gold and Silver Nanoparticles vs Chlorhexidine: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (10):1087-1097.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3200

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-02-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This study was conducted to evaluate the marginal adaptation, marginal staining, and postoperative sensitivity of resin composite restorations after disinfection of class II cavities with NanoCare Gold and chlorhexidine in class II cavities immediately, after 6 months, 1, and 2 years using World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria for assessment of dental restorations. Materials and methods: In this study, 19 participants were recruited, 3 carious lesions in each one. After preparation of these lesions, they were randomly allocated into three parallel groups according to the disinfection protocol. The first group was for NanoCare Gold, the second was for chlorhexidine, and the third was for the control. The three groups were evaluated clinically and radiographically using (FDI) criteria at different intervals till 2 years of clinical service. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in age, gender, arch, and tooth type distribution among study groups. Regarding marginal adaptation, there was no statistically significant difference among the different groups but the difference was only statistically significant within each group after 2 years. Regarding the marginal staining, the difference was only significant between the NanoCare and the other groups after 2 years. In case of postoperative sensitivity, there was no statistically significant difference among the different groups and within each one at different intervals. Conclusion: NanoCare Gold could be promising in durability preservation of direct tooth-colored restorations. Marginal staining and postoperative sensitivity are regulated by other factors than surface pretreatment. Clinical significance: As long as restorations are inserted under rubber dam isolation, proper application steps, proper filling, and adequate finishing and polishing, the performance of the restorations would be satisfactory up to 1 year without any surface disinfection. However, after a longer follow-up, some changes may be noticed. NanoCare Gold and chlorhexidine are accepted as a cavity disinfectant without any negative effect on marginal adaptation of resin composite restorations.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Krämer N, García-Godoy F, Reinelt C, et al. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities after six years. Dent Mater 2011;27(5):455–464. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.01.004.
  2. Favetti M, Schroeder T, Montagner AF, et al. Effectiveness of pre-treatment with chlorhexidine in restoration retention: a 36-month follow-up randomized clinical trial. J Dent 2017;60:44–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.014.
  3. Tekçe N, Tuncer S, Demirci M, et al. Do matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors improve the bond durability of universal dental adhesives? Scanning 2016;38(6):535–544. DOI: 10.1002/sca.21293.
  4. Ramasetty PA, Tripathi AP, Sugandhan S, et al. Nanotechnology in dentin disinfection: can we preserve the bond? Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;11(6):468–473. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1559.
  5. Jowkar Z, Shafiei F, Asadmanesh E, et al. Influence of silver nanoparticles on resin-dentin bond strength durability in a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive system. Restor Dent Endod 2019;44(2):e13. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2019.44.e13.
  6. Lukomska-Szymanska M, Zarzycka B, Sokolowski K, et al. Nanosilver dispersion in alcohol-antibacterial properties. E-Dentico 2013;1(41):66–75.
  7. Elgamily HM, El-Sayed HS, Abdelnabi A. The antibacterial effect of two cavity disinfectants against one of cariogenic pathogen: an in vitro comparative study. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(3):457–462. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_308_18.
  8. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, et al. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14(4):349–366. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8.
  9. Carvalho RM, Manso AP, Geraldeli S, et al. Durability of bonds and clinical success of adhesive restorations. Dent Mater 2012;28(1):72–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.011.
  10. Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J, et al. The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: a scoping review. J Dent 2018;68:1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.007.
  11. Montagner AF, Perroni AP, Corrêa MB, et al. Effect of pre-treatment with chlorhexidine on the retention of restorations: a randomized controlled trial. Braz Dent J 2015;26(3):234–241. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201300009.
  12. de Paula EA, Tay LY, Kose C, et al. Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies in cervical lesions: 12-month results. Int J Esthet Dent 2015;10(1):122–145. PMID: 25625130.
  13. Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results. J Appl Oral Sci 2019;27:e20180678. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678.
  14. Loguercio AD, Rezende M, Gutierrez MF, et al. Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations. J Dent 2019;85:93–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.018.
  15. Porenczuk A, Firlej P, Szczepańska G, et al. The laboratory comparison of shear bond strength and microscopic assessment of failure modes for a glass-ionomer cement and dentin bonding systems combined with silver nanoparticles. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2016;18(2):59–70. PMID: 27405339.
  16. Torres CRG, Mailart MC, Crastechini É, et al. A randomized clinical trial of class II composite restorations using direct and semidirect techniques. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24(2):1053–1063. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02999-6.
  17. Perdigão J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 2014;39(2):113–127. DOI: 10.2341/13-045-C.
  18. Carvalho AA, Leite MM, Zago JKM, et al. Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin–a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 2019;19(1):252–262. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0913-3.
  19. Zhou W, Liu S, Zhou X, et al. Modifying adhesive materials to improve the longevity of resinous restorations. Int J Mol Sci 2019;20(3):723. DOI: 10.3390/ijms20030723.
  20. Davalloo R, Tavangar SM, Ebrahimi H, et al. In vitro comparative evaluation of newly produced desensitizer, chlorhexidine and Gluma on bond strength and bond longevity of composite to dentin. J Dent (Shiraz) 2020;21(2):111–118. DOI: 10.30476/DENTJODS.2019.77756.0.
  21. Spencer P, Jonggu Park QY, Misra A, et al. Durable bonds at the adhesive/dentin interface: an impossible mission or simply a moving target? Braz Dent Sci 2012;15(1):4–18. DOI: 10.14295/bds.2012.v15i1.790.
  22. Montagner AF, Sarkis-Onofre R, Pereira-Cenci T, et al. MMP inhibitors on dentin stability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014;93(8):733–743. DOI: 10.1177/0022034514538046.
  23. Lapinska B, Konieczka M, Zarzycka B, et al. Flow cytometry analysis of antibacterial effects of universal dentin bonding agents on Streptococcus mutans. Molecules 2019;24(3):532. DOI: 10.3390/molecules24030532.
  24. Manarte-Monteiro P, Domingues J, Teixeira L, et al. Multi-Mode adhesives performance and success/retention rates in NCCLs restorations: randomized clinical trial one-year report. Biomater Investig Dent 2019;6(1):43–53. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2019.1684199.
  25. Sharma V, Rampal P, Kumar S. Shear bond strength of composite resin to dentin after application of cavity disinfectants–SEM study. Contemp Clin Dent 2011;2(3):155–159. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X. 86438.
  26. Elkassas DW, Fawzi EM, El Zohairy A. The effect of cavity disinfectants on the micro-shear bond strength of dentin adhesives. Eur J Dent 2014;8(2):184–190. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.130596.
  27. Bin-Shuwaish MS. Effects and effectiveness of cavity disinfectants in operative dentistry: a literature review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(10):867–879. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1946.
  28. Campos EA de, Correr GM, Leonardi DP, et al. Influence of chlorhexidine concentration on microtensile bond strength of contemporary adhesive systems. Braz Oral Res 2009;23(3):340–345. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242009000300019.
  29. Sokołowski J, Szynkowska MI, Kleczewska J, et al. Evaluation of resin composites modified with nanogold and nanosilver. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2014;16(1):51–61. PMID: 24708202.
  30. Subbiah G, Gopinathan N. Is silver diamine fluoride effective in preventing and arresting caries in elderly adults? A systematic review. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2018;8(3):191–199. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_99_18.
  31. Melo MAS, Cheng L, Weir MD, et al. Novel dental adhesive containing antibacterial agents and calcium phosphate nanoparticles. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2013;101(4):620–629. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.32864.
  32. Melo MAS, Cheng L, Zhang K, et al. Novel dental adhesives containing nanoparticles of silver and amorphous calcium phosphate. Dent Mater 2013;29(2):199–210. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.10.005.
  33. de Oliveira Reis B, de Lima Godas AG, Suzuki TYU, et al. Do different pretreatments of dentine surface affect the bond strength with a self-adhesive resin cement? Oral Health Prev Dent 2020;18(1):145–152. DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a43355.
  34. Torres-Méndez F, Martinez-Castañon G-A, Torres-Gallegos I, et al. Effects of silver nanoparticles on the bonding of three adhesive systems to fluorotic enamel. Dent Mater J 2017;36(3):266–274. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2015-299.
  35. Mackiewicz A, Olczak-Kowalczyk D. Microscopic evaluation of surface topography and chemical composition of Nanocare Gold. J Stomatol 2015;67(6):826–840. DOI: 10.5604/00114553.1137107.
  36. Porenczuk A, Grzeczkowicz A, Maciejewska I, et al. An initial evaluation of cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and antibacterial effectiveness of a disinfection liquid containing silver nanoparticles alone and combined with a glass-ionomer cement and dentin bonding systems. Adv Clin Exp Med 2019;28(1):75–83. DOI: 10.17219/acem/76160.
  37. Besinis A, De Peralta T, Handy RD. Inhibition of biofilm formation and antibacterial properties of a silver nano-coating on human dentine. Nanotoxicology 2014;8(7):745–754. DOI: 10.3109/17435390.2013.825343.
  38. Hashimoto M, Sasaki JI, Yamaguchi S, et al. Gold nanoparticles inhibit matrix metalloproteases without cytotoxicity. J Dent Res 2015;94(8):1085–1091. DOI: 10.1177/0022034515589282.
  39. Hashimoto M, Kawai K, Kawakami H, et al. Matrix metalloproteases inhibition and biocompatibility of gold and platinum nanoparticles. J Biomed Mater Res A 2016;104(1):209–217. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.35557.
  40. Hashimoto M, Yamaguchi S, Sasaki J-I, et al. Inhibition of matrix metalloproteinases and toxicity of gold and platinum nanoparticles in L929 fibroblast cells. Eur J Oral Sci 2016;124(1):68–74. DOI: 10.1111/eos.12235.
  41. Hashimoto M, Kawakami H, Kawai K, et al. Effect of particle size of gold nanoparticles on matrix metalloprotease inhibition, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity. J Biomater Tissue Eng 2017;7(2):139–146. DOI: 10.1166/jbt.2017.1555.
  42. Borczyk R, Pietranek K. Nanocare Gold preparation in the prevention of recurrent caries. Mag Stomatol 2009;(10):62–66.
  43. de Moraes IQS, do Nascimento TG, da Silva AT, et al. Inhibition of matrix metalloproteinases: a troubleshooting for dentin adhesion. Restor Dent Endod 2020;45(3):e31. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e31.
  44. Durner J, Stojanovic M, Urcan E, et al. Influence of silver nano-particles on monomer elution from light-cured composites. Dent Mater 2011;27(7):631–636. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.03.003.
  45. Cheng L, Weir MD, Xu HHK, et al. Antibacterial and physical properties of calcium-phosphate and calcium-fluoride nanocomposites with chlorhexidine. Dent Mater 2012;28(5):573–583. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.01.006.
  46. Dos Santos RA, de Lima EA, Montes MAJR, et al. Pre-treating dentin with chlorhexadine and CPP-ACP: self-etching and universal adhesive systems. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand 2016;2(1):79–85. DOI: 10.1080/23337931.2016.1203265.
  47. Carrilho MRO, Geraldeli S, Tay F, et al. In vivo preservation of the hybrid layer by chlorhexidine. J Dent Res 2007;86(6):529–533. DOI: 10.1177/154405910708600608.
  48. Soares CJ, Pereira JC, Souza SJB, et al. The effect of prophylaxis method on microtensile bond strength of indirect restorations to dentin. Oper Dent 2012;37(6):602–609. DOI: 10.2341/11-459-L.
  49. Sartori N, Stolf SC, Silva SB, et al. Influence of chlorhexidine digluconate on the clinical performance of adhesive restorations: a 3-year follow-up. J Dent 2013;41(12):1188–1195. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.09.004.
  50. Cha H-S, Shin D-H. Antibacterial capacity of cavity disinfectants against Streptococcus mutans and their effects on shear bond strength of a self-etch adhesive. Dent Mater J 2016;35(1):147–152. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2015-175.
  51. Gunaydin Z, Yazici AR, Cehreli ZC. In vivo and in vitro effects of chlorhexidine pretreatment on immediate and aged dentin bond strengths. Oper Dent 2016;41(3):258–267. DOI: 10.2341/14-231-C.
  52. Kim B-R, Oh M-H, Shin D-H. Effect of cavity disinfectants on antibacterial activity and microtensile bond strength in class I cavity. Dent Mater J 2017;36(3):368–373. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2016-283.
  53. Singla M, Aggarwal V, Kumar N. Effect of chlorhexidine cavity disinfection on microleakage in cavities restored with composite using a self-etching single bottle adhesive. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(4):374–377. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.87201.
  54. Göstemeyer G, Schwendicke F. Inhibition of hybrid layer degradation by cavity pretreatment: meta- and trial sequential analysis. J Dent 2016;49:14–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.04.007.
  55. Maurer C, Holzgreve F, Erbe C, et al. Influence of dental occlusion conditions on plantar pressure distribution during standing and walking–a gender perspective. Med Eng Phys 2021;88:47–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.12.011.
  56. Koç D, Doğan A, Bek B. Effect of gender, facial dimensions, body mass index and type of functional occlusion on bite force. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19(3):274–279. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572011000300017.
  57. Tripathi G, Ponnanna AA, Rajwadha N, et al. Comparative evaluation of maximum bite force in dentulous and edentulous individuals with different facial forms. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(9):ZC37–ZC40. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8801.4837.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.