ASSESSMENT OF MICROLEAKAGE AND MICROHARDNESS OF GLASS IONOMER CEMENT CONTAINING PROPOLIS: In Vitro Study | ||||
Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
Article 4, Volume 46, Issue 2, August 2021, Page 172-177 PDF (2.31 MB) | ||||
Document Type: Original Article | ||||
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.28760.1061 | ||||
View on SCiNiTO | ||||
Authors | ||||
Yomna M. ELghazouly 1; Aly Sharaf2; Seham Hanafy3; Laila M. El habashy4 | ||||
1Pediatric department ,Faculty of Dentistry ,University of Alexandria,Alexandria ,Egypt | ||||
2Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt | ||||
3Bio material Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria university, Alexandria,Egypt | ||||
4pediatric dental department Alexandria university | ||||
Abstract | ||||
Introduction: Propolis is a natural product collected by bees. Contemporary dentistry has recently focused on it, due to its antimicrobial properties. Objectives: To evaluate and compare the microleakage and microhardness of GIC containing EEP at 2 different concentrations to the conventional GIC. Materials and Methods: Two tests were assessed 1. Microleakage test :where 24 exfoliated primary teeth were divided randomly into three groups according to the restorative material used after standardized class V cavity preparation: (Group1: Conventional GIC, Group2: GIC containing 25% EEP, and Group 3: GIC containing 50% EEP), teeth were immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under stereomicroscope. 2. Microhardness test: 8 specimens from each group (GIC, GIC 25% EEP, and GIC 50% EEP) were prepared using a mold of six mm in diameter and two mm in thickness. The hardness of the specimens was measured using Vickers Micro-hardness Tester. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the microleakage scores between the three groups (p=0.34).The Microhardness values of the present study showed that GIC with 25% EEP showed significantly higher values than both the conventional GIC and GIC with 50% EEP (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the microhardness between the conventional GIC or GIC with 50% EEP (p>0.05) Conclusion: The addition of EEP to GIC in either (25%, 50%) did not affect the microleakage of GIC. Addition of 25% EEP increased the microhardness of the GIC while the addition of 50% EEP did not affect the microhardness of GIC | ||||
Keywords | ||||
Ethanolic Extract of propolis; glass ionomer cement; Streptococcus mutants; microleakage; microhardness | ||||
References | ||||
| ||||
Statistics Article View: 262 PDF Download: 502 |
||||