Crowley Jamie, Abdulhameed Nader, Al-Obaidi Rand, Hussein Hind
Lake Eire College of Osteopathic Medicine, Bradenton, Florida, USA.
Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, University of Florida, USA.
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2024 Jun 27;14(3):243-251. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_201_23. eCollection 2024 May-Jun.
Testing the effect of Fluoride, chlorhexidine, and molecular iodine applications on the mean micro-shear bond strength (SBS) of enamel in an attempt to preserve enamel integrity during the bonding process.
The study was an observational case-control one in which 150 human teeth were classified into 10 groups according to the product kind and the prescribed treatment. Each group consisted of 15 teeth. Group C was the control group. Groups FP, FV, and OS utilized products that could be utilized in a professional dental setting. Group FP was treated with 1.23% NaF prophy paste, Group FV was treated with 5% NaF varnish, and Group OS was treated with Opal® Seal Fluoride releasing primer and sealant. Groups L, LF, CHX, and I were treated with mouth rinses. Group L was treated with Listerine Zero Fluoride-Free Mouthwash, Group LF with Listerine Zero 0.02% NaF Mouth Rinse, Group CHX with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, and Group I with ioRinse RTU 100 ppm molecular iodine rinse. Groups TP and G utilized alternative remineralization products. Group TP was treated with Fluoro Calcium Phosphosilicate bioglass containing toothpaste, and Group G was treated with Curodont Protect remineralizing tooth gel. One-way ANOVA test was utilized to perform all statistical analysis in this study.
For mean micro-SBS, no significant difference ( > 0.05) between any of the experimental groups was observed when compared to the control group. There was a significant difference ( < 0.05) between Opal Seal versus Listerine Total, Opal Seal versus Peridex, Listerine versus Listerine Total, and Listerine versus Peridex. All other experimental group comparisons revealed a nonsignificant difference ( > 0.05).
As the null hypothesis (H0) assumes that changes observed in an experiment are due to chance, hence, the outcomes of this study are coherent with (H0) since the aforementioned application methods did not significantly impact the SBS of orthodontic resin cement to enamel.
测试氟化物、氯己定和分子碘的应用对牙釉质平均微剪切粘结强度(SBS)的影响,以便在粘结过程中保持牙釉质的完整性。
本研究为观察性病例对照研究,将150颗人牙根据产品种类和规定治疗方法分为10组。每组有15颗牙。C组为对照组。FP组、FV组和OS组使用可在专业牙科环境中使用的产品。FP组用1.23%氟化钠预防糊剂治疗,FV组用5%氟化钠 varnish治疗,OS组用Opal® Seal含氟释放底漆和密封剂治疗。L组、LF组、CHX组和I组用漱口水治疗。L组用不含氟的李施德林零度漱口水治疗,LF组用含0.02%氟化钠的李施德林零度漱口水治疗,CHX组用0.12%葡萄糖酸氯己定治疗,I组用100 ppm分子碘即时即用漱口水治疗。TP组和G组使用替代再矿化产品。TP组用含氟磷酸硅酸钙生物玻璃牙膏治疗,G组用Curodont Protect再矿化牙齿凝胶治疗。本研究采用单因素方差分析进行所有统计分析。
对于平均微SBS,与对照组相比,任何实验组之间均未观察到显著差异(>0.05)。Opal Seal与李施德林全效、Opal Seal与派丽奥、李施德林与李施德林全效以及李施德林与派丽奥之间存在显著差异(<0.05)。所有其他实验组比较均显示无显著差异(>0.05)。
由于原假设(H0)假定实验中观察到的变化是由于偶然因素,因此,本研究的结果与(H0)一致,因为上述应用方法并未显著影响正畸树脂水门汀与牙釉质的SBS。