Aims and background: To assess and compare the adhesive bond strengths of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), 5% Chitosan-modified GIC and 10% Chitosan-modified GIC to human dentin.Materials and methods: About 45 molars of permanent human teeth were inspected for defects, cleaned, and embedded in acrylic resin.Glass ionomer cement was modified by adding chitosan at different concentrations, i.e., 5% volume/volume (v/v) and 10% v/v.Dentin surfaces were exposed by removing the enamel and then polished.The dentin surfaces were then conditioned.The samples were categorized randomly into three groups: Conventional GIC (Group A), 5% Chitosan-modified GIC (Group B), and 10% Chitosan-modified GIC (Group C).Standardized molds were applied to the exposed dentin, and GIC was bonded using these molds to form cylindrical specimens.After incubation and thermocycling, a universal testing machine was used to measure the adhesive bond strength.The readings were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test using SPSS software V.21.Results: The highest mean adhesive bond strength was observed in group C (10% Chitosan-modified GIC), followed by group B (5% Chitosanmodified GIC), and group A (Conventional GIC).There were statistically significant differences noted between Conventional GIC and 10% Chitosan-modified GIC, as well as between 5% Chitosan-modified GIC and 10% Chitosan-modified GIC.However, there was no statistically significant difference between Conventional GIC and 5% Chitosan-modified GIC.Conclusion: Incorporating Chitosan into GIC enhanced adhesive bond strength, with 10% Chitosan-modified GIC showing the most significant improvement.These modifications have the potential to enhance clinical outcomes in restorative dentistry.Clinical significance: Enhanced adhesive bond strength with 10% Chitosan-modified GIC suggests potential for more reliable and long-lasting dental restorations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhargava et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: