High impact information on Dental Cavity Lining

• Premolar teeth with Class II amalgam restorations placed after the application of cavity varnish (Group A), a light cured glass ionomer base (Group B) and 40 per cent polyacrylic acid as a pretreatment agent, followed by unset cermet cement (Group C) were examined for marginal leakage using dye penetration and image analysis [1].
• Effect of four cavity varnishes and a fluoride solution on microleakage of dental amalgam restorations [2].
• For this reason, the results are inconclusive as to whether or not application of 40 per cent silver fluoride as a cavity varnish of liner and its use in the 'atraumatic' technique for treating deep caries, can be considered safe clinical procedures [3].
• Three mm of the coronal gutta-percha was replaced by either Cavit, TERM, or amalgam with cavity varnish [4].
• An in vitro study was carried out on 60 human pre- molar teeth to study the sealing efficacy of Glass Ionomer, Silver amalgam, Composite resin and cavity varnish in Class V cavities [5].

Anatomical context of Dental Cavity Lining

• Dentin Adhesit, Cavi-Line and Kavite Lak cavity varnishes were applied to the walls of prepared Class V cavities in fifty-two caries free extracted molar teeth before placing amalgam fillings [6].

Associations of Dental Cavity Lining with chemical compounds

• Treatment with agents such as eugenol and cavity varnish resulted in significant leakage after 5 to 15 minutes [7].
• Selected dentinal desensitizing was accomplished with burnishing procedures, cavity varnish, calcium hydroxide, and topical fluoride [8].
• Cavity varnish improves the marginal seal but possesses no antibacterial properties, and chlorhexidine gluconate is a known antimicrobial substance [9].
• Finger portions from latex and vinyl examination gloves were sealed to syringe barrels and exposed to alcohol, eugenol, a surface disinfectant, cavity varnish, or commercial mouth wash [7].

References