Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: This study was done to compare and evaluate the compressive strength, diametral tensile strength, and microleakage of glass ionomer cement and chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer cement. The glass ionomer cements used in the study were Fuji IX for group I and chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer cement for group II. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The strength characteristics (compressive and diametral tensile strengths) and microleakage of both the groups were evaluated after 24 h. Student's "t" test and Mann-Whitney test were used for statistical analysis of the difference in strength characteristics and microleakage. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference (P>0.05) in the strength characteristics and microleakage of glass ionomer cement and chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer cement. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that strength characteristics and marginal sealing capability of chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer cement were similar to those of glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX). So, chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer can be considered as a substitute for glass ionomer cements, especially in pediatric dentistry.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahluwalia et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: