Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(04): 639-646
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727556
Original Article

Analysis of Chlorhexidine Modified Cement in Orthodontic Patients: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial

José Lucas dos Santos Araújo
1   Graduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
2   Rua José Lourenço Kelmer, São Pedro, Brazil
,
Mariana Massi Afonso Alvim
2   Rua José Lourenço Kelmer, São Pedro, Brazil
3   Pharmacy School, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
,
Márcio José da Silva Campos
2   Rua José Lourenço Kelmer, São Pedro, Brazil
4   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
,
Ana Carolina Morais Apolônio
2   Rua José Lourenço Kelmer, São Pedro, Brazil
4   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
,
Fabíola Galbiatti Carvalho
2   Rua José Lourenço Kelmer, São Pedro, Brazil
4   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
,
Rogério Lacerda-Santos 
2   Rua José Lourenço Kelmer, São Pedro, Brazil
4   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brazil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the microbiological and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement (GIC) modified by chlorhexidine (CLX) for the purpose of cementing bands to the teeth of orthodontic patients.

Materials and Methods Ten patients, between the ages of 19 and 33 years, in the initial stage of orthodontic treatment, were randomly designated to two groups using the split-mouth design (n = 10). One group (GICEX) had bands cemented with GIC modified by CLX and a Control group (GIC), evaluated at time intervals before (T0), 3 months (T3), and 6 months (T6) after cementation. Total microbiological counts were performed, and color stability of tooth enamel, salivary pH, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) were evaluated.

Statistical Analysis The Friedman and Dunn’s tests, Mann–Whitney, one-way analysis of variance, and Tukey, and paired and non-paired t-tests (p< 0.05) were used.

Results In T3, there was evidence of significant reduction in the quantity of colony forming unit (CFU) in GICEX group in comparison with the Control (p = 0.041). In T6, the quantity of CFU was similar to the quantity in T3 and significantly different to control (p = 0.045); Control group demonstrated a similar quantity of CFU between the experimental time intervals (p = 0.066). Salivary pH demonstrated significant difference only between the time intervals T0 and T6 (p = 0.022). The tooth enamel color (p = 0.366) and ARI (p = 0.343) values demonstrated no significant changes.

Conclusion The incorporation of CLX into GIC demonstrated effective antibacterial action, allowed a good bond of the cement to the enamel, a high rate of survival of the bands, did not change the color of the tooth enamel, and maintained the salivary pH at physiological levels.

Keywords

glass ionomer cement - chlorhexidine - microbiota - orthodontic


Publication History

Article published online:
24 August 2021

© 2021. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Farret MM, de Lima EM, Mota EG, Oshima HM, Barth V, de Oliveira SD. Can we add chlorhexidine into glass ionomer cements for band cementation?. Angle Orthod 2011; 81 (03) 496-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Almeida Mesquita J, Lacerda-Santos R, Pina Godoy G, Franscisco Weege Nonaka C, Muniz Alves P. Morphological and immunohistochemical analysis of the biocompatibility of resin-modified cements. Microsc Res Tech 2017; 80 (05) 504-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mesquita JA, Lacerda-Santos R, Sampaio GAM, Godoy GP, Nonaka CFW, Alves PM. Evaluation in vivo of biocompatibility of differents resin-modified cements for bonding orthodontic bands. An Acad Bras Cienc 2017; 89 (Suppl. 03) 2433-2443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Vandersluis YR, Suri S. Infective endocarditis and orthodontic implications in children: a review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020; 157 (01) 19-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bergamo AZ, Nelson-Filho P, Romano FL. et al Gingival crevicular fluid volume and periodontal parameters alterations after use of conventional and self-ligating brackets. J Orthod 2016; 43 (04) 260-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Reichardt E, Geraci J, Sachse S. et al Qualitative and quantitative changes in the oral bacterial flora occur shortly after implementation of fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019; 156 (06) 735-744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pandis N, Vlachopoulos K, Polychronopoulou A, Madianos P, Eliades T. Periodontal condition of the mandibular anterior dentition in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Orthod Craniofac Res 2008; 11 (04) 211-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Aguilar-Perez D, Vargas-Coronado R, Cervantes-Uc JM. et al Antibacterial activity of a glass ionomer cement doped with copper nanoparticles. Dent Mater J 2020; 39 (03) 389-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lacerda-Santos R, Sampaio GA, Moura MdeF. et al Effect of different concentrations of chlorhexidine in glass-ionomer cements on in vivo biocompatibility. J Adhes Dent 2016; 18 (04) 325-330
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Millett DT, Doubleday B, Alatsaris M. et al Chlorhexidine- modified glass ionomer for band cementation? An in vitro study. J Orthod 2005; 32 (01) 36-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ripari F, Cera A, Freda M, Zumbo G, Zara F, Vozza I. Tea tree oil versus chlorhexidine mouthwash in treatment of gingivitis: a pilot randomized, double blinded clinical trial. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (01) 55-62
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Torres-Rosas R, Torres-Gómez N, Moreno-Rodríguez A, García-Contreras R, Argueta-Figueroa L. Anti-inflammatory and antibacterial activity of the chitosan/chlorhexidine gel commercial preparation for postexodontia treatment: an in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (03) 397-403
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Coelho AS, Laranjo M, Gonçalves AC. et al Cytotoxic effects of a chlorhexidine mouthwash and of an enzymatic mouthwash on human gingival fibroblasts. Odontology 2020; 108 (02) 260-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Meneses IHC, Sampaio GAM, Carvalho FG. et al In vivo biocompatibility, mechanical, and antibacterial properties of cements modified with propolis in different concentrations. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (01) 77-84
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sampaio GAM, Lacerda-Santos R, Cavalcanti YW, Vieira GHA, Nonaka CFW, Alves PM. Biocompatibility of ionomeric cements modified by red propolis: a morphological and immunohistochemical analysis. J Adhes Dent 2020; 22 (05) 515-522
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sampaio GM, de Meneses IH, de Carvalho FG. et al Antimicrobial, mechanical and biocompatibility analysis of chlorhexidine digluconate-modified cements. J Clin Exp Dent 2020; 12 (02) e178-e186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks and Its Impact on the Field of Nonparametric Statistics. In: Rojo J. (eds) Selected Works of E.L. Lehmann. Selected Works in Probability and Statistics. Springer, Boston, MA;2012: 1101-1110
  • 18 Daniels C, Richmond S. The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON).. J Orthod 2000; 27 (02) 149-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 do Nascimento LE, Pithon MM, dos Santos RL. et al Colonization ofStreptococcus mutanson esthetic brackets: self-ligating vs conventional. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143 (04) , Suppl) S72-S77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brandt J, Nelson S, Lauer HC. von Hehn U, Brandt S. In vivo study for tooth colour determination-visual versus digital. Clin Oral Investig 2017; 21 (09) 2863-2871
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Meireles SS, Demarco FF, dos IdaS Santos, Dumith SdeC, Bona AD. Validation and reliability of visual assessment with a shade guide for tooth-color classification. Oper Dent 2008; 33 (02) 121-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D. et al Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17 (01) 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brusca MI, Chara O, Sterin-Borda L, Rosa AC. Influence of different orthodontic brackets on adherence of microorganisms in vitro. Angle Orthod 2007; 77 (02) 331-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Yadiki JV, Jampanapalli SR, Konda S, Inguva HC, Chimata VK. Comparative evaluation of the antimicrobial properties of glass ionomer cements with and without chlorhexidine gluconate. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 9 (02) 99-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lessa FC, Aranha AM, Nogueira I, Giro EM, Hebling J, Costa CA. Toxicity of chlorhexidine on odontoblast-like cells. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18 (01) 50-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rölla G, Melsen B. On the mechanism of the plaque inhibition by chlorhexidine. J Dent Res 1975; 54 Spec No B: B57-B62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hoszek A, Ericson D. In vitro fluoride release and the antibacterial effect of glass ionomers containing chlorhexidine gluconate. Oper Dent 2008; 33 (06) 696-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dos Santos AA, Pithon MM, Carlo FG. et al Effect of time and pH on physical-chemical properties of orthodontic brackets and wires. Angle Orthod 2015; 85 (02) 298-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Aframian DJ, Davidowitz T, Benoliel R. The distribution of oral mucosal pH values in healthy saliva secretors. Oral Dis 2006; 12 (04) 420-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sifakakis I, Papaioannou W, Papadimitriou A, Kloukos D, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Salivary levels of cariogenic bacterial species during orthodontic treatment with thermoplastic aligners or fixed appliances: a prospective cohort study. Prog Orthod 2018; 19 (01) 25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Serratine ACP, Silva MRM. Validation of a simplified method for evaluation of salivary pH in children. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr 2009; 9 (02) 217-221
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Dawes C. What is the critical pH and why does a tooth dissolve in acid?. J Can Dent Assoc 2003; 69 (11) 722-724
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ramberg P, Axelsson P, Lindhe J. Plaque formation at healthy and inflamed gingival sites in young individuals. J Clin Periodontol 1995; 22 (01) 85-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ristic M, Vlahovic Svabic M, Sasic M, Zelic O. Clinical and microbiological effects of fixed orthodontic appliances on periodontal tissues in adolescents. Orthod Craniofac Res 2007; 10 (04) 187-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Paul S, Peter A, Pietrobon N, Hämmerle CH. Visual and spectrophotometric shade analysis of human teeth. J Dent Res 2002; 81 (08) 578-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Watts A, Addy M. Tooth discolouration and staining: a review of the literature. Br Dent J 2001; 190 (06) 309-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hassel AJ, Koke U, Schmitter M, Beck J, Rammelsberg P. Clinical effect of different shade guide systems on the tooth shades of ceramic-veneered restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2005; 18 (05) 422-426
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Joiner A. The bleaching of teeth: a review of the literature. J Dent 2006; 34 (07) 412-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bagis B, Baltacioglu E, Özcan M, Ustaomer S. Evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse-induced staining using a digital colorimeter: an in vivo study. Quintessence Int 2011; 42 (03) 213-223
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Zanatta FB, Antoniazzi RP, Rösing CK. Staining and calculus formation after 0.12% chlorhexidine rinses in plaque-free and plaque covered surfaces: a randomized trial. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18 (05) 515-521
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hodges SJ, Gilthorpe MS, Hunt NP. The effect of micro-etching on the retention of orthodontic molar bands: a clinical trial. Eur J Orthod 2001; 23 (01) 91-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Millett DT, McCabe JF, Bennett TG, Carter NE, Gordon PH. The effect of sandblasting on the retention of first molar orthodontic bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. Br J Orthod 1995; 22 (02) 161-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Millett DT, Hallgren A, McCluskey LA. et al A clinical retrospective evaluation of 2 orthodontic band cements. Angle Orthod 2001; 71 (06) 470-476
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Stirrups DR. A comparative clinical trial of a glass ionomer and a zinc phosphate cement for securing orthodontic bands. Br J Orthod 1991; 18 (01) 15-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Walsh T, Oliveira-Neto JM, Moore D. Chlorhexidine treatment for the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (04) CD008457
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Jenatschke F, Elsenberger E, Welte HD, Schlagenhauf U. Influence of repeated chlorhexidine varnish applications on mutans streptococci counts and caries increment in patients treated with fixed orthodontic appliances. J Orofac Orthop 2001; 62 (01) 36-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar