Microtensile Bond Strength of Gic and Rmgic Restored to Carious Teeth Treated With Carisolv and Papacarie- An in Vitro Study

Abstract

BACKGROUNDThe overall longevity and clinical performance of adhesive restorative materials ultimately depends on the strength of the bond between the restorative material and the tooth surface. This study was performed to evaluate the influence of Carisolv and Papacarie on the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) and resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) restored to caries-affected dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODSSixty-four extracted carious primary molars were randomly divided into four groups depending on the chemomechanical caries removal agent used. Group 1A-conventional GIC with Carisolv, Group 1B-RMGIC with Carisolv, Group 2A-conventional GIC with Papacarie and Group 2B-RMGIC with Papacarie. All of the teeth were then restored with corresponding restorative materials. The samples were sectioned into 1 × 1 mm 2 sticks using a hard tissue microtome and were subjected to tensile forces at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until failure of the bond occurred. µTBS were determined and subjected to statistical analysis using an independent sample 't' test. RESULTSThe microtensile bond strength of conventional GIC was higher with Carisolv as compared to Papacarie, which was statistically significant. RMGIC also showed a higher microtensile bond strength when restored to carious teeth treated with Carisolv, but this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONIt was seen that Carisolv did not adversely affect the microtensile bond strength of both conventional GIC and RMGIC. KEYWORDSCMCR, Carisolv, Papacarie, µTBS, GIC, RMGIC. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Varun RP, Chamarthi VR, Annamalai S. Microtensile bond strength of GIC and RMGIC restored to carious teeth treated with carisolv and papacarie-an in vitro study.

A Bibliometric Analysis (2010–2020) of the Dental Scientific Literature on Chemo-Mechanical Methods of Caries Removal Using Carisolv and BRIX3000

“…According to some researchers, conventional glass ionomer cement showed higher values of microtensile bond strength for the dentine surfaces chemo-mechanically treated with Carisolv than those treated with Papacárie [36]. Carisolv did not negatively affect the microtensile bond strength of either the resin-modified glass ionomer cement or the conventional glass ionomer cement [36].…”

“…Group 1 (red) mainly focused on the effects of chemo-mechanical caries removal methods on the properties of the smear layer [16,[23][24][25] and how these parameters influenced the adhesion [16,[26][27][28][29][30] and the bond strength of dental adhesives [2,16,27,[31][32][33][34][35]. Papacárie, a papain-based gel, was used in several studies to compare the efficacy of different CMCR methods [12,16,23,30,31,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Sodium hypochlorite was also tested in comparison with other CMCR agents, especially for endodontic use [26,46,[48][49][50].…”

“…Group 3 (blue) focused on different aspects related to chemo-mechanical caries removal methods, especially those that involved the use of Carisolv [2,4,5,16,24,30,31,[33][34][35][36][41][42][43]46,[49][50][51]54,55,57,59,60,[63][64][65][66][67][68][69]. Similarly to the first group, the articles included in this group also studied different adhesive systems and the microtensile bond strength or the microleakage of the interface between the residual dentin and composite resin [27,[32][33][34][35][36]47] or glass ionomer cement [19,36,64,68].…”

“…According to some researchers, conventional glass ionomer cement showed higher values of microtensile bond strength for the dentine surfaces chemo-mechanically treated with Carisolv than those treated with Papacárie [36]. Carisolv did not negatively affect the microtensile bond strength of either the resin-modified glass ionomer cement or the conventional glass ionomer cement [36]. Similar results were reported by Mayaho et al, who studied the surface roughness of the dentin from forty temporary molars treated with four different minimally invasive methods using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM) and profilometry; the authors observed that the surface topography of the treated dentin revealed distinctive patterns according to the particular method used, but the shear bond strength of the glass ionomer cement was not noticeably altered by the use of any minimally invasive procedure [26].…”