Pavuluri Chaitanya, Nuvvula Sivakumar, Kamatham Rekha Lakshmi, Nirmala Svsg
Senior Lecturer, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Drs Sudha and Nageswara Rao Siddhartha Institute of Dental Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Professor and Head, Department of Pedodontics, Narayana Dental College, Nellore Andhra Pradesh, India.
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014 Sep-Dec;7(3):172-5. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1259. Epub 2015 Feb 9.
Conventional caries removal involves use of high-speed handpiece. Current concepts of caries excavation in cavitated lesions consist of manual excavators. Principles of minimal invasive approach indicate the need to excavate only carious tissue.
The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage in conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cement restorations following conventional and chemomechanical caries removal.
Hundred class I carious human mandibular first molar s were collected and divided into two groups: I and II (50 each). Each group was further divided into subgroups, i.e. (IA, IB and IIA, IIB). Caries was completely removed using conventional method in group one and chemomechanically in group two. The teeth in group IA, IIA are restored with conventional glass ionomer comment (GIC) and in group IB, IIB restored with resign-modified glass ionomer comments (RMGIC), followed by fnishing and polishing. Subsequently, the specimens were thermocycled and then placed in dye solution. The teeth were sectioned through the restorations and evaluated for microleakage scores using a stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test.
Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in microleakage between the conventional GIC and RMGIC following conventional and chemomechanical caries removal method.
Carisolv is minimally invasive and an effective alternative treatment for the removal of occlusal caries. How to cite this article: Pavuluri C, Nuvvula S, Kamatham RL, Nirmala SVSG. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Conventional and RMGIC Restorations following Conventional and Chemomechanical Caries Removal: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7(3):172-175.
传统的龋洞预备需要使用高速手机。目前对于已形成龋洞病变的龋坏组织去除的观念包括使用手动挖匙。微创治疗原则表明仅需去除龋坏组织。
本研究旨在比较传统去龋和化学机械去龋后，传统玻璃离子水门汀和树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀修复体的微渗漏情况。
收集100颗人类下颌第一恒磨牙I类龋洞，分为两组：I组和II组（每组50颗）。每组再进一步分为亚组，即（IA、IB和IIA、IIB）。第一组采用传统方法完全去除龋坏组织，第二组采用化学机械方法。IA组、IIA组的牙齿用传统玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）修复，IB组、IIB组的牙齿用树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀（RMGIC）修复，随后进行修整和抛光。随后，将标本进行热循环，然后置于染料溶液中。沿修复体将牙齿切片，使用体视显微镜评估微渗漏评分。数据采用Mann-Whitney U检验进行分析。
统计分析表明，传统去龋和化学机械去龋方法后，传统GIC和RMGIC之间的微渗漏无显著差异。
Carisolv微创，是去除咬合面龋的一种有效替代治疗方法。如何引用本文：Pavuluri C, Nuvvula S, Kamatham RL, Nirmala SVSG. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Conventional and RMGIC Restorations following Conventional and Chemomechanical Caries Removal: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7(3):172 - 175.
