Geleneksel Cam İyonomer İçerisine Katılmış Klorheksidin+Benzalkonyum Klorid Karışımının Mikrosertlik ve Florür Salım Özelliklerinin İn-vitro Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2018, Volume: 21 Issue: 2, 103 - 108, 29.07.2018

Tamer Tüzüner

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.407334

Öz

Amaç: Atravmatik restoratif tedavide, antibakteriyel materyallerin cam iyonomer siman (CİS) ile birlikte kullanımının restorasyon altındaki bakterilerin eliminasyonunda yararlı olduğu düşünülmektedir. Bununla birlikte çeşitli antibakteriyel materyallerin CİS’lara eklenmesi sonucunda simanın yapısında zararlı fiziksel ve kimyasal değişimler oluşabilir. Bu nedenle, bu araştırmada Klorheksidin (KHX)+ Benzalkonyum klorid (BK) karışımı geleneksel cam iyonomer siman (GCİS)’ın tozunun içerisine katılarak mikrosertlik ve flüorür salım özelliklerindeki değişimlerin analiz edilmesi amaçlandı.

Gereç ve Yöntem: %1 KHX+%1 BK karışımı GCİS’nın tozu içerisine katılarak deney grubu oluşturuldu (DNY). Antibakteriyel içermeyen GCİS ise kontrol grubu olarak belirlendi (KNT). Vickers mikrosertlik ölçümleri (VMS; n=10; her bir grupta) ve florür salım (FS; n=10, her bir grupta) miktarları 1 ve 7. günlerde hesaplandı. İstatistiksel analiz için Mann Whitney U ve Wilcoxon testleri p<0.05 düzeyinde kullanıldı.

Bulgular: Birinci (p<0.001) ve 7. (p<0.001) günlerde KNT grubunda DNY grubu ile karşılaştırıldığında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı daha yüksek VMS değerleri elde edildi. Yedinci gün değerleri 1.gün ile karşılaştırıldığında KNT (p<0.01) ve DNY (p<0.05) gruplarında anlamlı düzeyde artan VMS değerleri gözlendi. Florür salım miktarları 1. ve 7. Günlerde KNT (p>0.05) ve DNY (p>0.05) grupları arasında anlamlı farklılık göstermedi. Yedinci gün değerleri 1.gün ile karşılaştırıldığında ise KNT (p<0.01) ve DNY (p<0.01) gruplarında anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek FS değerleri gösterdi.

Sonuç: %1 KHX+%1 BK karışımının GCİS ile birlikte kullanımın mikrosertlik değerleri için problemli ancak florür salım özellikleri için KNT grubuna göre daha az ciddi sorun oluşturmasının yanısıra, VMS ve FS sonuçlarının zamana bağlı olarak değişimlerinin kabul edilebilir olduğu konusunun, gelecekte yapılacak olan araştırmalarda göz ardı edilmemesi gerektiği kanısına varılabilir.

Anahtar kelimeler: geleneksel cam iyonomer siman, klorheksidin, benzalkonyum klorid, yüzey mikrosertliği, florür

Anahtar Kelimeler

geleneksel cam iyonomer siman, klorheksidin, benzalkonyum klorid, yüzey mikrosertliği, florür

In-vitro evaluation of the microhardness and fluoride releasing properties of chlorhexidine+benzalkonium chloride mixtures incorporated into conventional glass ionomer cement

Öz

Objectives: In atraumatic restorative dentistry, the usage of
antibacterial materials with glass ionomer cements (GICs) are considered as
beneficial for eliminating the residual caries under the restoration. However,
adding such antibacterials to the GIC could lead harmful effects on the
pyhsical and chemical properties of the cement nature. Thus, it was aimed to
analyze the microhardness and fluoride releasing alterations of chlorhexidine
(CHX)+benzalkonium chloride (BC) antibacterial (AB) mixtures which were added
to the powder of conventional glass ionomer cement (CGIC).

Materials and Method: The powders of AB (1% CHX+1% BC) were
added to the powders of CGIC and selected as experimental group  (EXP). Antibacterial free CGIC was assigned
as control (CNT). Vickers micro hardness measurements (VHN; n=10, for each
group) and fluoride releasing (FR; n=10; for each group) amounts were
calculated at days 1 and 7. Mann Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests were used for
statistical analysis at a significance value of p<0.05.

Results: Significantly higher VHN values were obtained in CNT
compared to the EXP group at days 1 (p<0.001) and 7 (p<0.001).
Significantly increased VHN values observed at day 7 compared to the day 1 in
CNT (p<0.01) and EXP (p<0.05) groups. The FRA revealed no significant
differences between CNT and EXP at days 1 (p>0.05) and 7 (p>0.05).
Significantly higher FR values were shown at day 7 compared to the day 1 in CNT
(p<0.01) and EXP (p<0.01).

Conclusions:
It can be concluded that, even the usage of 1% CHX + 1% BC mixtures with the
CGIC may be more problematic for microhardness values but acceptable  for fluoride releasing properties compared to
the CNT group, reasonable time dependent alterations observed in VHN and FR
results should not be overlooked for future studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

conventional glass ionomer cement, chlorhexidine, benzalkonium chloride, surface micro hardness, fluoride

Kaynakça

• 1.Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD. ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1998; 26: 372–381.
• 2.Massara ML, Alves JB, Brandao PR. Atraumatic restorative treatment: clinical, ultrastructural and chemical analysis. Caries Res 2002; 36: 430–436.
• 3. Ferreira Fde M, do Vale MP, Jansen WC, Paiva SM, Pordeus IA. Performance of Brazilian and imported glass ionomer cements used in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) regarding microleakage in primary molars. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14:312-318.
• 4. Van Amerongen WE. Dental caries under glass ionomer restorations. J Public Health Dent 1996;56:150–154.
• 5. Weerheijm KL, Groen HJ. The residual caries dilemma. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:436–441.
• 6. Weerheijm KL, Kreulen CM, de Soet JJ, et al. Bacterial counts in carious dentine under restorations: 2-year in vivo effects. Caries Res 1999;33:130–134.
• 7.Jedrychowski JR, Caputo AA, Kerpes S. Antibacterial and mechanical properties of restorative materials combined with chlorhexidine. J Oral Rehabil 1983;10: 373–381.
• 8.Tüzüner T, Ulusu T. Effect of antibacterial agents on the surface hardness of a conventional glass-ionomer cement. Journal of Applied Oral Science 2012;20:45-9.
• 9. Riberio J, Ericson D. In vitro antibacterial effect of chlorhexidine added to glass-ionomer cements. Scand J Dent Res 1991;99:533–540.
• 10.Sanders BJ, Gregory RL, Moore K, et al. Antibacterial and physical properties ofresin modified glass-ionomers combined with chlorhexidine. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:553–558.
• 11. Botelho MG. Inhibitory effects on selected oral bacteria of antibacterial agents incorporated in a glass ionomer cement. Caries Res 2003;37:108–114.
• 12. Palmer G, Jones FH, Billington RW, et al. Chlorhexidine release from experimental glass ionomer cement. Biomaterials 2004;25:423–431.
• 13. Pinheiro SL, Simionato MRL, Imparato JCP, et al. Antibacterial activity of glass ionomer containing antibiotics on caries lesion microorganisms. Am J Dent 2005;18:261–266.
• 14. Botelho MG. The antimicrobial activity of a dentin conditioner combined with antibacterial agents. Oper Dent 2005;30:75–82.
• 15. Takahashi Y, Imazoto S, Kaneshiro AV, et al. Antibacterial effects and physical properties of glass-ionomers cements containing chlorhexidine for the ART approach. Dent Mater 2006;22:647–652.
• 16. Türkün LS, Türkün M, Ertugrul F, et al. Long-term antibacterial effects and physical properties of restorative materials combined with chlorhexidine. J Esthet Restor Dent 2008; 20:29–44.
• 17. Hoszek A, Ericson D. In vitro fluoride release and the antibacterial effect of glass-ionomers containing chlorhexidine gluconate. Oper Dent 2008; 33: 696–701.
• 18. Yesilyurt C, Er K, Tasdemir T, et al. Antibacterial activity and physical properties of glass-ionomer cements containing antibiotics. Oper Dent 2009; 34: 18–23.
• 19.Tüzüner T, Kuşgöz A, Er K, Taşdemir T, Buruk K, Kemer B et al. Antibacterial activity and physical properties of conventional glass-ionomer cements containing chlorhexidine diacetate/cetrimide mixtures. J Esthet Rest Dent 2011; 23: 46-55.
• 20. Hu J, Du X, Huang C, Fu D, Ouyang X, Wang Y . Antibacterial and physical properties of EGCG-containing glass ionomer cements. J Dent 2013; 41: 927-934.
• 21. Farrugia C, Camilleri J. Antimicrobial properties of conventional restorative filling materials and advances in antimicrobial properties of composite resins and glass ionomer cements – A literature review. Dent Mater 2015; 31: e89-e99.
• 22. Silva RC, Zuanon AC, Esberard RR, Candido MS, Machado JS. In vitro microhardness of glass ionomer cements. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007;18: 139-142.
• 23. Karantakis P, Helvatjoglou-Antoniades M, Theodoridou-Pahini S, Papadogiannis Y. Fluoride release from three glass ionomers, a compomer, and a composite resin in water, artificial saliva, and lactic acid. Oper Dent 2000;25:20-25.
• 24.Bell A, Creanor SL, Foye RH, Saunders WP. The effect of saliva on fluoride release by a glass-ionomer filling material. Journal of oral rehabilitation 1999;26:407-412.
• 25.Dionysopoulos P, Kotsanos N, Pataridou A. Fluoride release and uptake by four new fluoride releasing restorative materials. J Oral Rehab 2003;30:866-872.
• 26.Attin T, Buchalla W, Siewert C, Hellwig E. Fluoride release/uptake of polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) in neutral and acidic buffer solutions. J Oral Rehab 1999;26:388-393.
• 27.Williams JA, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The glass ionomer cement: the sources of soluble fluoride. Biomaterials 2002;23:2191-200.
• 28.Arısu HD, Bala O, Üçtaşlı MB, Kalaycı Ş. Cam iyonomer siman ve poliasit modifiye kompozit rezinlerin florid salma özellikleri. GÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg 2007;24:157-61.