HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Millett, D. T. Articles by Devine, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Millett, D. T. Articles by Devine, D.

Chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer forbandcementation? An in vitro study

Glasgow Dental School, Glasgow, UK

D. Wood, F. Luther and D. Devine

Leeds Dental Institute, Leeds, UK

Address for correspondence: Professor D. T. Millett, Department of Oral Health and Development, University Dental School and Hospital, Wilton Road, Cork, Ireland. Email: d.millett{at}ucc.ie

Objective: To compare the mean retentive strength, predominant site of band failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth at deband and survival time of orthodontic micro-etched bands cemented with chlorhexidine-modified (CHXGIC) or conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC).

Design: In vitro study.

Setting: Dental Materials Laboratory.

Materials and methods: One-hundred-and-twenty intact, caries-free third molars were collected from patients attending for third molar surgery. These were stored for 3 months in distilled water and decontaminated in 0.5% chloramine. To assess retentive strength, 80 teeth were randomly selected and 40 were banded with each cement. Testing was undertaken using a Nene M3000 testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Following debanding, the predominant site of failure was recorded as cement–enamel or cement–band interface. The amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface following deband was assessed and coded. Survival time for another 40 banded specimens, 20 cemented with each cement, was assessed following application of mechanical stress in a ball mill.

Main outcome measures: Retentive strength, predominant site of failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface, survival time.

Results: Mean retentive strength for bands cemented with CHXGIC (0.32 MPa, SD 0.09) or GIC (0.28 MPa, SD 0.07) did not differ significantly (p=0.05). All bands failed at the enamel–cement interface. There was no significant difference in the amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface after deband for each cement type (p=0.23). The mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC was 7.0 and 6.4 hours, respectively (p=0.23).

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in mean retentive strength, amount of cement remaining on the tooth after deband or mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC. Bands cemented with either cement failed predominantly at the enamel–cement interface. The results suggest that CHXGIC may have comparable clinical performance to GIC for band cementation.

Key words: Chlorhexidine, glass ionomer cements, orthodontic bands