title: Chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer for band cementation? An in vitro study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the mean retentive strength, predominant site of band failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth at deband and survival time of orthodontic micro-etched bands cemented with chlorhexidine-modified (CHXGIC) or conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC).
  
  
  METHODS
  In vitro study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Dental Materials Laboratory.
  
  
  METHODS
  One-hundred-and-twenty intact, caries-free third molars were collected from patients attending for third molar surgery. These were stored for 3 months in distilled water and decontaminated in 0.5% chloramine. To assess retentive strength, 80 teeth were randomly selected and 40 were banded with each cement. Testing was undertaken using a Nene M3000 testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Following debanding, the predominant site of failure was recorded as cement-enamel or cement-band interface. The amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface following deband was assessed and coded. Survival time for another 40 banded specimens, 20 cemented with each cement, was assessed following application of mechanical stress in a ball mill.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retentive strength, predominant site of failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface, survival time.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mean retentive strength for bands cemented with CHXGIC (0.32 MPa, SD 0.09) or GIC (0.28 MPa, SD 0.07) did not differ significantly (p=0.05). All bands failed at the enamel-cement interface. There was no significant difference in the amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface after deband for each cement type (p=0.23). The mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC was 7.0 and 6.4 hours, respectively (p=0.23).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There was no significant difference in mean retentive strength, amount of cement remaining on the tooth after deband or mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC. Bands cemented with either cement failed predominantly at the enamel-cement interface. The results suggest that CHXGIC may have comparable clinical performance to GIC for band cementation.
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral Health and Development, University Dental School and Hospital, Wilton Road, Cork, Ireland. d.millett@ucc.ie
authors.forename: D T
authors.initials: DT
authors.lastname: Millett
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Doubleday
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Alatsaris
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Love
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Wood
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Luther
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Devine
mesh_terms: D000891:Anti-Infective Agents, Local / Q000737:chemistry*; D002484:Cementation; D002710:Chlorhexidine / Q000031:analogs & derivatives* / Q000737:chemistry*; D001840:Dental Bonding; D017005:Dental Debonding; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000473:pathology; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D008964:Molar, Third; D016910:Orthodontic Brackets; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D016019:Survival Analysis; D013997:Time Factors; D019228:Tooth Crown / Q000473:pathology
chemical_list: D000891:Anti-Infective Agents, Local; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; C010882:chlorhexidine gluconate; D002710:Chlorhexidine