RESUMO
AIM: To assess the effect of CAD surface conditioners and their effect on Ra and SBS of tooth-colored filling material adhered to CAD surface with adhesive modified with 1 % Sep-NPs. Also, the DC of modified EA and its effect on the rheological properties. METHODS: Ninety human molars with carious extension up to the middle third of occlusal dentin were included. The teeth were then arbitrarily allocated into three groups based on the type of surface conditioning received (n = 30) Group 1 (PA), Group 2 (FS laser), and Group 3 (Ery PS). Ten samples from each group underwent Ra analysis using a stylus profiler. Twenty samples from each cohort were distributed into two subcategories based on the application of unmodified EA (A) and Sep-infiltrated EA (B). Composite restoration was built followed by SBS and failure mode analysis. Scanning electron microscopy and Energy dispersive X-ray EDX were assessed of sepiolite NPs. Degree of conversion (DC) and rheological analysis of the modified adhesive and unmodified adhesive were also performed. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey post hoc test were employed to conduct comparisons between the different groups. RESULTS: The highest score of Ra and bond strength were displayed by Group 1B (PA + Sep-NPs filled EA) (17.32 ± 1.43 MPa) samples. Nevertheless, the lowest values were established by Group 3A (Ery-PS + EA) (13.45 ± 0.80 MPa) treated teeth. An increase in Ra resulted in a rise in SBS.DC decreased with the incorporation of 1 % Sep-NPs in EA compared to unmodified EA. CONCLUSION: Conditioning of CAD with PA and FS laser shows high surface roughness and favorable adhesion to experimental adhesive modified with 1 % Sep-NPs. Modified adhesive with 1 % Sep-NPs decreases DC and rheological properties.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This clinical trial aimed to study the comparison of clinical gingival inflammatory scores and levels of pathogenic bacteria with professionally administered plaque removal (PAPR) with photoactivated disinfection (PAD) and Salvadora persica (SP) gel application in experimentally induced gingivitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five non-smoking patients underwent an 8-week experimental gingivitis trial that consisted of 14 days of undisturbed plaque accumulation and a 6 week of resolution phase following the three treatment modalities. The treatment protocols included PAPR with adjunctive PAD, SP gel application and PAPR alone. Clinical gingival inflammatory parameters including plaque index (PI) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed. Microbiological parameters included the log count of five periodontal pathogens in the plaque from all experimental sites. RESULTS: No significant difference in plaque levels was observed between PAD, SP and PAPR at 2- and 6-weeks following treatment. The magnitude of the decrease was statistically significant at 6 weeks for SP (P = 0.02). The median number of residual BOP+ sites was higher at PAD and PAPR compared to SP at either 2-weeks (2.75 and 1.25, respectively; P = 0.039) or 6 weeks (2 and 1, respectively; P = 0.044) following treatment administration. Counts of all bacteria reduced until 2 weeks with significantly greatest reduction seen in the PAD group and this was maintained until 6 weeks of follow-up. The log CFU/mL values for all bacterial counts significantly reduced for SP group, however, it did not show significant reduction when compared with PAD but had greater extent when compared with PAPR group. CONCLUSION: Both PAD and SP gel application improved clinical gingival inflammatory parameters in experimental-induced gingivitis. However, PAD helped to reduce bacterial counts, while SP had significant impact on bleeding in gingival inflammation.