Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Original article / research
Full Version
Comparison of Surface Roughness of Class V Cavity Preparation using Diamond Abrasive Point and Ultrasonic Tip and Measurement of Shear Bond Strength after Restoration with Composite Resin: An In-vitro Study
Correspondence Address :
Abhijit Ghosh,
Ghosh Bhawan, Elachi, 89 Vivekananda Sarani, Post- Narendrapur, P.S.- Sonarpur, Kolkata-700103, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: draghosh99@gmail.com
Introduction: Non Carious Cervical Lesions (NCCLs) represent a prevalent dental condition characterised by the erosion of tooth structure at the cementoenamel junction without the involvement of dental caries. These lesions pose significant challenges due to their aesthetic impact, potential for dentinal hypersensitivity, plaque accumulation, pulpal complications and compromised structural integrity of the teeth. Tooth preparation traditionally uses diamond abrasive points and tungsten carbide burs for micromechanical adhesion. Newer methods, like ultrasonic tips, offer a more conservative approach, but limited research has compared their effects on bond strength, particularly in cervical cavity restorations with nanohybrid composites.
Aim: To compare the surface roughness of cervical cavity preparations utilising diamond abrasive points and ultrasonic tips, and to evaluate the shear bond strength of restorations with composite resin.
Materials and Methods: The present in-vitro comparative study was conducted in the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Guru Nanak Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Panihati, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, from October 2023 to December 2023. The study included 52 freshly extracted maxillary 1st premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic reasons. These teeth were divided into two groups: Group-I (n=26) underwent surface preparation using a diamond abrasive point (No. 835-012, Piranha, SS White, USA), while Group-II (n=26) was prepared using an ultrasonic tip (Woodpecker G 20, Guilin Woodpecker, China). Teeth were cleaned, disinfected and stored in 0.1% thymol solution before being prepared with diamond abrasive points or ultrasonic tips, following which the specimens were restored using nanohybrid composite material (Solare X, GC Corporation, Japan). Surface roughness was assessed using a digital profilometer before the restoration, and the shear bond strength of repaired specimens was measured with a Universal Testing Machine. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism, with independent samples t-tests applied to compare results between groups, and a significance level set at 5%.
Results: Group-I exhibited greater surface roughness (6.33±2.18 μm) compared to Group-II (4.91±1.57 μm). Group-I also showed higher shear bond strength (62±13 MPa) than Group-II (59.3±19.9 MPa), though this variation was not statistically significant (p-value=0.56).
Conclusion: Within the present study’s limitations, diamond abrasive points created significantly greater surface roughness compared to ultrasonic tips. However, no statistically significant variations have been observed in shear bond strength among the two methods, suggesting that ultrasonic tips may be considered as an alternative to diamond abrasive points in clinical settings, avoiding their drawbacks while achieving adequate restoration retention.
Erosion, Nanohybrid composites, Profilometer, Surface properties
A NCCL refers to the erosion of tooth structure at the cementoenamel junction, which is typically not caused by dental caries (1). Levitch LC et al., state that NCCLs are identified by the gradual and permanent loss of mineralised tooth structure at the cemento-enamel junction (2). NCCLs cause aesthetic issues, dentinal hypersensitivity, plaque retention, pulpal involvement and tooth structural integrity problems. The prevalence of NCCLs ranges from 9.1% to 93.0% in South American populations (3) and 22.7% in the Indian population (4). Restoring these lesions is challenging, involving isolation, tooth preparation, adhesion, insertion techniques, and finishing and polishing. Restoration failure primarily results from debonding. The recommended materials for restoring NCCLs are Glass Ionomer Cement (GICs), Resin-modified GICs (RMGICs), GIC/RMGIC liner bases combined with resin composite and composite resins. These materials are selected primarily for their favourable aesthetic properties and clinical effectiveness. Micro-mechanical adhesion occurs when the adhesive becomes interlocked with the irregularities present on the surface of the substrate. It is believed that higher surface roughness and irregularities improve wettability by increasing the surface area, thus enhancing the bond between the adhered surface and adhesive (5).
Tooth preparation traditionally involves diamond abrasive points and tungsten carbide burs. Recently, ultrasonic tips, coated with fine diamond fragments that conservatively remove tooth surfaces, have been introduced for tooth preparation. Because mastication is primarily a process of cutting or tearing, shear bond strength measures the adhesive strength of the restorative material at the interface between the tooth and the restoration. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the strength of bonds using shear mode in order to obtain results that are relevant in a clinical context (6),(7),(8). Although some research has been conducted on different types of tooth preparation, the limited published work primarily concerns the shear bond strength of nanohybrid composites on dentinal walls using ultrasonic tips. The present in-vitro study was aimed to compare the surface roughness of cervical cavity preparations using diamond abrasive points and ultrasonic tips and to measure the shear bond strength after restoring with composite resin. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in surface roughness and shear bond strength of restorative materials between teeth prepared with diamond abrasive points and those prepared with ultrasonic tips.
The present in-vitro comparative study was performed in the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Guru Nanak Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Panihati, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, from October 2023 to December 2023. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (Reference number: GNIDSR/IEC/21-24/31).
Inclusion criteria: Freshly extracted maxillary 1st premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic reasons were included in the study.
Exclusion criteria: Those teeth with any type of carious lesion, preexisting restoration, decalcification, hypoplasia, severe anatomic variations, cracks, pre-existing cervical lesions, or resorptive defects were excluded from the study.
Sample size calculation: Sample size estimation was performed using G*Power software (version 3.1.9.7; Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany) with a t-test for comparing means between two independent groups. The analysis, set with an alpha level of 0.05 and a power of 80%, yielded a non centrality parameter of 2.8844, a critical t-value of 2.0086, and degree of freedom of 50. The total sample size was 52. (26 per group). This sample size was deemed sufficient for detecting meaningful differences in surface roughness and for evaluating and comparing both surface roughness and shear bond strength of restorative materials between the two groups.
Study Procedure
Teeth (N=52) were cleaned with ultrasonic scalers, disinfected with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite, and stored in 0.1% thymol solution. Using rubber base moulds and cold cure acrylic resin blocks, specimens were prepared for surface evaluation. Group-I (n=26) received surface preparation with a diamond abrasive point (No.835-012, Piranha, SSWhite), while Group-II (n=26) underwent preparation with an ultrasonic tip (Woodpecker G 20) (Table/Fig 1)a-d. Surface roughness (Ra, Rq, Rz) was measured using a digital profilometer (Mitutoya, Japan) (Table/Fig 2)a-d. The Ra coefficient is the average of the absolute profile heights over a specific length of evaluation. Rz is the sum of the highest profile elevation and lowest profile depression within a specific segment of evaluation. Rq is the root mean square of the average profile heights over the same length of evaluation (9). After conducting a surface evaluation, the specimens were repaired using nanohybrid composite material (Solare X, GC Corporation, Japan). The shear bond strength of the repaired specimens was then measured using a Universal Testing Machine (Model KUT 40, Ratnakar Enterprises, India). A statistical analysis was conducted to compare the results between different groups.
Statistical Analysis
This has been performed by utilising GraphPad Prism for Windows, Version 10.1.2 (California, USA). Independent samples t-tests were used to analyse differences between groups for outcome variables assessing normality with the Shapiro-Wilk’s test, which indicated that the data were normally distributed. The significance level has been set at five percentage.
Significant differences have been found in surface roughness parameters between the two study groups: Group-I exhibited a statistically higher mean for Ra (6.33±2.18 μm) compared to Group-II (4.91±1.57 μm) (p-value=0.0095), for Rq (7.82±2.52 μm) compared to Group-II (5.89±2.01 μm) (p-value=0.0037), and for Rz (30.8±7.96 μm) compared to Group-II (24.8±6.23 μm) (p-value=0.0039) (Table/Fig 3). However, when considering shear bond strength, no statistically significant difference was observed, indicating weak evidence that Group-I (62±13 MPa) had a higher mean than Group-II (59.3±19.9 MPa) (p-value=0.56) (Table/Fig 4).
The present in-vitro study evaluated the impact of various tooth preparation approaches, using conventional rotary instruments (diamond abrasive points) and ultrasonic tips, on human maxillary first premolars’ surface roughness, and on shear bond strength of nanohybrid composite resin (SOLARE X, GC) restorations on prepared tooth surfaces, employing a self-etching adhesive system (G-Premio Bond) with a Universal Testing Machine. Maxillary premolars were selected because NCCLs are more prevalent in maxillary premolars (32.3%) (7).
In the present study, Group-I, where surfaces were prepared using coarse diamond abrasives, exhibited significantly greater roughness compared to surfaces prepared using ultrasonic tips (Group-II). Surface roughness was measured in μm by Ra, Rz and Rq parameters. Youssef M et al., concluded that surface abrasion with an ultrasonic tip produced a more regular sample surface, while conventional diamond abrasives produced an irregular surface depending on the number and size of particles, consistent with the findings of the current study (10). According to Okda RA et al., mean surface roughness values (Ra) of specimens prepared by utilising diamond abrasives and sono-abrasion were significantly higher than those prepared by utilising carbide burs, which is consistent with the present study (11).
In contrast to the present study, Rapani A et al., demonstrated no significant variations in parameters of (Ra) between enamel and dentin when using a high-speed contra-angle, air turbine handpiece, or ultrasonic device (12). Similarly, a study by Jelínková H showed no significant difference in surface roughness values between ultrasonic and Erbium: Yttrium Argon Garnet (Er: YAG) laser methods, which differs from the present study (13).
In the present study, an eighth-generation dentin bonding agent (G-Premio Bond, GC Corporation, Japan) was used, as it leaves residual smear plugs that reduce dentinal fluid flow compared to etch and rinse adhesives. It also contains nanosized fillers that enhance resin monomer penetration and increase hybrid layer thickness, improving adhesive mechanical properties (14).
Nanohybrid composite Solare X (GC, Japan) was chosen for its low polymerisation shrinkage and low modulus of elasticity, providing a more flexible and less brittle composite. Low shrinkage is achieved through optimised resin formulation and the use of new-generation prepolymerised fillers.
According to Alzraikat H et al., and Pashley DH and Tay FR the macro-shear test is commonly used to assess bond strength and has gained popularity due to its simplicity and quick results, also useful for screening new adhesive formulations on bonding effectiveness (15),(16).
In the present study, Group-I (diamond abrasive points) exhibited higher shear bond strength (62±13 MPa) compared to Group-II (ultrasonic tips) (59.3±19.9 MPa) (p-value=0.56). However, no statistically significant variations have been observed found among the two groups. The reduced bond strength observed with the ultrasonic tip vs conventional diamond abrasive points is attributed to lower surface roughness and microcracks observed on the dentin surface (17). Borges AB et al., (2011) found no significant differences in shear bond strengths between specimens prepared with ultrasonic diamond-coated tips and those prepared with conventional diamond abrasives, which is consistent with the current study (18). Additionally, Conde A et al., compared surface treatments with CVDentus ultrasound tips and KG Sorensen diamond burs on etched and non etched dentin, showing that the ultrasonic group exhibited greater bond strength than coarse diamond abrasives, contrasting with the present study (19).
Souza GS et al., (2011) assessed the impact of ultrasonic Chemical Vapour Deposition (CVD) compared to conventional rotary diamond tips on the adhesive strength of composite resin to dentin (20). The results showed that the average bond strength value of CVD tips was significantly greater than that of rotary diamond tips (20). However, the use of ultrasonic tips also has disadvantages. Reports indicate that these tips require four times longer for tooth preparation completion (21). Moreover, their lower cutting efficiency and higher cost compared to conventional diamond abrasives limit their use.
Overall, the null hypothesis regarding surface roughness is rejected, as significant differences were observed between the two preparation methods. Conversely, the null hypothesis concerning shear bond strength is not rejected, as no significant difference was found between the two groups.
Strengths of the present study include providing valuable insights into the surface roughness and shear bond strength of different tooth preparation techniques using comprehensive measurements and statistical analysis. The use of a standardised methodology, encompassing tooth selection, preparation techniques and testing procedures, enhances the study’s reliability.
Limitation(s)
The present study has few potential limitations. Firstly, the in-vitro setting may not fully replicate the complex oral environment, which could limit the generalisability of the findings to clinical practice. Secondly, the absence of thermocycling in the experimental set-up may have affected the shear bond strength results, potentially reducing their clinical relevance. Lastly, the use of a digital surface profilometer, as opposed to an optical profilometer, may have impacted the precision of surface roughness measurements.
Diamond abrasive points significantly increased surface roughness compared to ultrasonic tips. However, no statistically significant variations have been observed in shear bond strength among the two methods. This suggests that ultrasonic tips may be considered an alternative to diamond abrasive points in clinical settings, avoiding their drawbacks while achieving adequate restoration retention.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/74118.20253
Date of Submission: Jul 08, 2024
Date of Peer Review: Jul 25, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Oct 01, 2024
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2024
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 09, 2024
• Manual Googling: Jul 24, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Sep 30, 2024 (8%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 8
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com