|Year : 2016 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 27-30
Effect of various chemical agents used in gingival retraction systems on smear layer: Scanning electron microscope study
Krishna Shivraj Lahoti
Department of Prosthodontics, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
|Date of Web Publication||22-Feb-2016|
Krishna Shivraj Lahoti
10, Indira Devi Town, Near Middle Ring Road, Wathoda Road, Nandanvan, Nagpur - 440 009, Maharashtra
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
| Abstract|| |
Background: Chemical agents used for gingival retraction affects the smear layer. Aim: To determine the effect of three different chemical agents used for gingival retraction systems on smear layer. Materials and Methods: Four human premolars were prepared using air-rotor with air-water spray to receive full crown restoration. Three of them were treated with 21.3% aluminum chloride for 10 min, 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride for 10 min, and expasyl for 2 min, respectively. One sample was left untreated. Then, the tooth specimens were rinsed with tap water to remove any residue of test materials. All the samples (treated and untreated) were processed by scanning electron microscope (SEM). Processed samples were examined under SEM at ×2400 to evaluate the effect of chemical agents on smear layer. Results: SEM examination revealed that 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride for 10 min produced no alteration to smear layer followed by minimum alteration by expasyl for 2 min and complete removal of smear layer with etching of dentin with 21.3% aluminum chloride for 10 min. Conclusion: 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride and expasyl are kind to smear layer.
Keywords: Aluminum chloride, displacement, expasyl, gingival retraction, oxymetazoline hydrochloride, smear layer
|How to cite this article:|
Lahoti KS. Effect of various chemical agents used in gingival retraction systems on smear layer: Scanning electron microscope study. Contemp Clin Dent 2016;7:27-30
|How to cite this URL:|
Lahoti KS. Effect of various chemical agents used in gingival retraction systems on smear layer: Scanning electron microscope study. Contemp Clin Dent [serial online] 2016 [cited 2020 Jun 4];7:27-30. Available from: http://www.contempclindent.org/text.asp?2016/7/1/27/177104
| Introduction|| |
Chemico-mechanical means of gingival retraction is a routine clinical procedure in fixed prosthodontics not only before impression making but also for finishing of intracrevicular margins and cementation of such restorations.,, Until date, numerous chemical agents had been used for gingival retraction such as epinephrine, aluminum chloride, and ferric sulfate which are either vasoconstrictors or astringents. Impregnating the cord with hemostatic solution just before its use had been recommended., In intracrevicular margins, these hemostatic solutions will invariably come in direct contact with tooth structure.
The effect of different chemical agents on smear layer is variable. The clinician is always in a dilemma to choose which hemostatic solution on the basis of its effect on smear layer. Even, relationship between thicknesses of smear layer with pH of the hemostatic solution should be established. The chemicals used in this study are routine hemostatic agents used for gingival retraction.
This study was planned to evaluate the effect of 21.3% aluminum chloride, 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride, and expasyl paste on smear layer.
| Materials and Methods|| |
The study protocol consisted of:
- Determination of pH of three different gingival retraction systems
- Preparation of tooth specimens for scanning electron microscope (SEM) examination
- Processing of specimens for SEM examination.
Determination of pH of three different chemical agents
pH of 21.3% aluminum chloride, 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride, and expasyl were determined using pH meter.
Preparation of tooth specimens for scanning electron microscope examination
Caries free and periodontally sound human premolars extracted for purpose of orthodontic treatment were used for preparing specimens for SEM examination. The tooth was longitudinally sectioned into two equal halves, and then the root portion of the teeth was removed to increase accessibility. Teeth were prepared using air-rotor with air-water spray to receive full crown restoration [Figure 1]. One sample was left untreated for control group. The remaining prepared teeth were treated with respective groups.
- Group A - 21.3% aluminum chloride for 10 min
- Group B - 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride for 10 min
- Group C - expasyl paste for 2 min.
The samples for Groups A and B were immersed in respective solutions for 10 min whereas expasyl was applied on the sample for Group C using applicator for 2 min.
Then, the tooth specimens were rinsed with tap water to remove any residue of test materials.
Processing of specimens for scanning electron microscopic examination
Immediately after rinsing with tap water, treated specimens were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde for 12 h at 4°C. After fixation, the specimen were washed with phosphate buffer solution and then dehydrated in ascending grades of alcohol (50%, 70%, 90%, and 100%) for 10 min each at room temperature. After the specimens were air dried, they were mounted on aluminum stubs with Araldite and silver paste which is used as a conducting medium as specimen is nonconducting. The specimens were sputter coated with gold-palladium (150–200 A° thick) using Polaron ES 2000, SEM auto coating unit. Analysis using a Cambridge Steroscan 250 MK III SEM operated between 10 and 20 KV was done at working distance of 6–8 mm. Each specimen surface was scanned in its entire to obtain on overview of the general surface topography. Areas characteristics of the general surface topography were selected and photographed.
| Observations and Results|| |
Determination of pH
pH of all the three groups was determined by using pH meter. pH of the tested group were as follows:
- Group A - 21.3% aluminum chloride - 1.82
- Group B - 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride - 6.44
- Group C - expasyl paste - 3.86.
Scanning electron microscopic examination
Representative samples of untreated and all the three treated groups were examined under SEM at ×2400 to evaluate the effect of three different gingival retraction chemical agents on smear layer.
In the untreated sample, an amorphous mass of debris was seen. The outlines of the tubular pattern of dentinal tubules were not visible. The debris was coagulated in certain areas [Figure 2].
In Group A, i.e., 21.3% aluminum chloride treated samples, dentinal tubules were wide open. Tubular pattern was clearly seen with etching of intertubular dentin. Some of the dentinal tubules were partially occluded indicating complete removal of smear layer with opened dentinal tubules and visible etching of dentin [Figure 3].
|Figure 3: Scanning electron microscope photograph of Group A, i.e., 21.3% aluminum chloride|
Click here to view
In Group B, i.e., 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride treated samples, amorphous mass of debris was seen. Tubular pattern was not seen. The debris was accumulated in clusters indicating intact smear layer [Figure 4].
|Figure 4: Scanning electron microscope photograph of Group B, i.e., 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride|
Click here to view
In Group C, i.e., expasyl paste treated samples, mass of debris was seen. Along with that, some of the dentinal tubules were showing recognizable tubular pattern with cracks across tubular opening. All the tubules were occluded. This group revealed partially removed smear layer with occluded dentinal tubules [Figure 5].
|Figure 5: Scanning electron microscope photograph of Group C, i.e., expasyl paste|
Click here to view
SEM examination revealed that Group B produced no alteration to smear layer followed by minimum alteration by Group C and complete removal of smear layer with etching of dentin with Group A.
| Discussion|| |
Researchers have confirmed that tooth preparation by rotary instrumentation would results in the production of smear layer on the remaining dentin;, the thickness of smear layer may vary from 0.5 to 15 um depending upon the method of instrumentation.,, According to Pashley, the smear layer acts as a beneficial cavity liner instrumental in protecting the tooth from postpreparation sensitivity, even better than commercially available cavity liners. on the contrary, Brännström advocated the removal of smear layer so as to provide better adaptation of lining and luting materials. Some investigators recommend removal of smear layer to improve the bond strength of certain dentin bonding agents  while other are in favor to maintain the thickness of smear layer composite resin restoration placed without glass ionomer liners. Researchers have confirmed that chemical agents remove the smear layer to various degrees such as use of 37% phosphoric acid for 15 s, 10% of polyacrylic acid for 20 s, and even 25% of tannic acid for 60 s. Land et al. concluded that 21.3% aluminum chloride and 8% racemic epinephrine hydrochloride the removed greatest amount of smear layer. New hemostatic agents such as 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride or 0.025% tetrahydrozoline hydrochloride are also effective hemostatic solutions. Cordless displacement material such as expasyl had been introduced as an alternative to liquid hemostatic solutions, and it proved to be effective and more user-friendly. Hence, in this study, it was decided to evaluate the effect of these chemical agents on smear layer.
Researches have also found relationship between pH and amount of smear layer removal. In this study, to establish the relationship between thicknesses of smear layer with pH of the hemostatic solutions, the pH of all the three groups were determined using pH meter.
Laufer et al. through their study concluded that to achieve a crevicular width of 0.2 mm, cord should remain in the gingival crevice for an optimum time of 4 min prior to impression making. However, contemporary textbooks recommended that the cord should remain in the gingival crevice for an optimum time of 10 min. Hence, liquid hemostatic solution, i.e., Groups A and B, was allowed to remain in contact with prepared tooth for 10 min.
In our study, pH of all three groups were determined by pH meter and found that Group A, i.e., 21.3% aluminum chloride had least pH of 1.82 followed by Group C, i.e., expasyl paste containing kaolin and aluminum chloride, of 3.86. Group B, i.e., 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride was found to be 6.44.
It is a logical relationship that with acidic pH of retraction agents, the smear layer is bound to be altered. With more acidity, there is more alteration of smear layer and dentin. Therefore, to avoid this alteration, alternative would be to use a retraction agent that has a neutral/alkaline pH.
However, chemicals used for retraction are not stable in alkaline pH and therefore, some alteration of the smear layer and dentin is to be expected. Hence, from the pH meter reading, one can propose that 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride (pH-6.44) would alter the tooth structure minimally, and 21.3% aluminum chloride (pH-1.82) would have maximum effects. Expasyl paste containing of kaolin and aluminum chloride (pH-3.86) would have intermediate changes.
To observe the effect of these retraction agents has on the prepared tooth structure, an SEM observation was felt necessary. The samples thus were prepared for SEM examination. Prepared were treated with respective groups of retraction agents for corresponding period. SEM examination of representative sample revealed that Group A, i.e., 21.3% aluminum chloride sample showed complete removal of smear layer with opened dentinal tubules and visible etching of dentin. SEM observation of Group B, i.e., 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride treated sample showed intact smear layer. SEM photographs of Group C revealed partially removed smear layer with occluded dentinal tubules. The results of this study are similar to Woody et al. where they concluded that oxymetazoline hydrochloride and tetrahydrozoline hydrochloride have a more acceptable pH and should be kind to the tooth structure.
This revealed that Group B produced no alteration to smear layer followed by minimum alteration by Group C and complete removal of smear layer with etching of dentin with Group A. The results of this study are in consistent with the results obtained by Land et al. indicating that more the hemostatic solution is acidic, more the smear layer removal. 21.3% aluminum chloride showed detrimental effects on smear layer and dentin. 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride having nearly neutral pH provides no alteration to smear layer. As expasyl had higher pH than 21.3% aluminum chloride and lower pH than 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride, it showed intermediate changes. The period of 2 min further reduced the effect that aluminum chloride in paste form might have.
Limitations of the study
- Results of this study need to be verified with other chemicals with variation in time
- Results of the study are to be evaluated on other teeth of both maxillary and mandibular arch.
| Conclusion|| |
From the SEM examination, it is evident that Group B, i.e., knitted cord impregnated with 0.05% oxymetazoline hydrochloride produced no alteration to smear layer followed by minimum alteration by Group C, i.e., expasyl paste retraction system. Complete removal of smear layer with etching of dentin was demonstrated in Group A sample i.e., knitted cord impregnated with 21.3% aluminum chloride. Hence, showing that oxymetazoline hydrochloride and expasyl are kind to smear layer and tooth structure.
All science is concerned with the relationship of cause and effect. Each scientific discovery increases man's ability to predict the consequences of his actions and thus his ability to control future events with scientific research being its lifeline. Much has been done and will be done till the optimum ideal is achieved.
Dr. Jaykumar Gade, Professor and HOD, Department of Prosthodontics, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur for inspiring me to conduct the study.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujnmoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1988. p. 220-l.
Weir DJ, Williams BH. Clinical effectiveness of mechanical-chemical tissue displacement methods. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:326-9.
Benson BW, Bomberg TJ, Hatch RA, Hoffman W Jr. Tissue displacement methods in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:175-81.
Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. 2nd
ed. Chicago: Quintessence Pub1 Co.; 1981. p. 200.
Dippel HW, Borggreven JM, Hoppenbrouwers PM. Morphology and permeability of the dentinal smear layer. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:657-62.
Gwinnett AJ. Smear layer: Morphological considerations. Oper Dent Suppl 1984;3:2-12.
Pashley DH. Smear layer: Physiological considerations. Oper Dent Suppl 1984;3:13-29.
Brännström M, Glantz PO, Nordenvall KJ. The effect of some cleaning solutions on the morphology of dentin prepared in different ways: An in-vivo
study. ASDC J Dent Child 1979;46:291-5.
Pashley DH, Michelich V, Kehl T. Dentin permeability: Effects of smear layer removal. J Prosthet Dent 1981;46:531-7.
Brännström M. Smear layer: Pathological and treatment considerations. Oper Dent Suppl 1984;3:35-42.
Garcia-Godoy F. Dentin surface treatment and shear bond strength of a light-cured glass ionomer. Am J Dent 1992;5:283-5.
Srisawaski S, Boyer DB, Reinhardt JW. The effect of removal of the smear layer on microleakage of class V restorations in vitro
. Dent Mater 1988;4:384-9.
Bitter NC. Tannic acid for smear layer removal: Pilot study with scanning electron microscope. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:503-7.
Land MF, Rosenstiel SF, Sandrik JL. Disturbance of the dentinal smear layer by acidic hemostatic agents. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:4-7.
Bowles WH, Tardy SJ, Vahadi A. Evaluation of new gingival retraction agents. J Dent Res 1991;70:1447-9.
Smeltzer M. An alternative way to use gingival retraction paste. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1485.
Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Ganor Y, Cardash HS. The effect of marginal thickness on the distortion of different impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:466-71.
Woody RD, Miller A, Staffanou RS. Review of the pH of hemostatic agents used in tissue displacement. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70:191-2.
Land MF, Couri CC, Johnston WM. Smear layer instability caused by hemostatic agents. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:477-82.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]