RESUMO
BACKGROUND: One of the greatest benefits of contemporary restorative dentistry is the creation of fixed partial dentures. The retention and durability of the fixed partial dentures may be improved by using a variety of tooth preparation methods, surface treatments, and luting resins. AIM: To measure the shear binding strength of resin cement to saliva-contaminated lithium disilicate (LDS) ceramic after being exposed to various cleaning treatments. METHODOLOGY: Over 30 LDS samples were examined. In Group 1, a cleansing solution comprising 15% zirconium oxide (Ivoclean) was employed for a duration of 20 s. This was succeeded by a rinsing phase lasting 15 s utilizing deionized water, followed by a 15-s period for drying. Subsequently, a final stage of air drying was conducted over a span of 15 s. In contrast, Group 2 underwent a washing procedure of 20 s involving a cleansing solution containing 30% sodium silicate. This was then ensued by a rinsing interval of 15 s with deionized water, succeeded by an air-drying process spanning 15 s. After applying cleaning solutions to the surface and adhering the specimens to the composite blocks using resin cement Multilink Automix (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), the shear bond strength was assessed. RESULTS: Using a 30% sodium silicate solution (Group 2), we were able to get the highest mean shear bond strength value after saliva-contaminated LDS. Group 1, 15% zirconium oxide (Ivoclean) had the weakest decontamination agents as measured by mean shear bond strengths. The shear bond strength values of the two groups were found to vary significantly between individuals using the independent sample t-test. LDs ceramic cleaned with a 30% sodium silicate solution had a higher shear bond strength than ceramic cleaned with Ivoclean (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The application of a 30% sodium silicate solution rendered the highest shear bond strength for saliva-contaminated LDS ceramic. In comparison, ceramic cleaned with Ivoclean exhibited notably lower shear bond strength values. The outcome of this investigation highlights the potential of diverse cleaning agents in influencing the adhesive qualities of resin cement, thereby contributing to the enhancement of fixed partial denture durability and efficacy.
RESUMO
AIM: The current study aimed to determine the impact of three different disinfectants on the surface roughness and color stability of heat-cure acrylic denture material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a stainless-steel mold, disc-shaped wax patterns with dimensions of 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick (in accordance with ADA Specification No. 12) were created and prepared for a total of 75 acrylic samples. Dimensions of all 75 acrylic samples were checked with a digital Vernier caliper. About 25 samples of denture base material were immersed in three different chemical disinfectants: Group I: immersed in chlorhexidine gluconate solution, group II: immersed in sodium hypochlorite solution, and group III: immersed in glutaraldehyde solution. All samples were scrubbed daily for 1 minute with the appropriate disinfectant and submerged for 10 minutes in the same disinfectant. Between disinfection cycles, samples were kept in distilled water at 37°C. Color stability was measured using a reflection spectrophotometer. Surface roughness values were measured by a profilometer at baseline following 15 days and 30 days. RESULTS: After 15 days, the color stability was better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.88 ± 0.24) than sodium hypochlorite solution (4.74 ± 0.18) and glutaraldehyde solution group (4.46 ± 0.16). The mean surface roughness was less in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.10 ± 0.19), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.48 ± 0.09) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (2.64 ± 0.03). After 30 days, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.40 ± 0.02), followed by sodium hypochlorite solution (4.06 ± 0.16) and glutaraldehyde solution group (3.87 ± 0.17). The mean surface roughness was significantly lesser in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.41 ± 0.14), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.94 ± 0.08) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (3.02 ± 0.13). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group than sodium hypochlorite solution and glutaraldehyde solution group. But the surface roughness was significantly lesser in the glutaraldehyde solution group, followed by the chlorhexidine gluconate and sodium hypochlorite solution group. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The maintenance of the prosthesis requires the use of a denture disinfectant; therefore, it is crucial to select one that is effective but would not have a negative impact on the denture base resin's inherent characteristics over time. How to cite this article: Kannaiyan K, Rakshit P, Bhat MPS, et al. Effect of Different Disinfecting Agents on Surface Roughness and Color Stability of Heat-cure Acrylic Denture Material: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(11):891-894.