Perbedaan daya pembersih kavitas saponin ekstrak kulit manggis (Garcinia mangostana Linn) 0,78% dan asam sitrat 6% (The difference of 0,78% saponin from mangosteen pericarp extract and 6% citric acid for cleanliness of cavity)
Downloads
Background: Cleanliness of cavity is considered important for a restoration. Smear layer formed after cavity preparation should be removed in order not to disrupt the bond adhesion between restorative materials and dental cavities. Saponins contained in mangosteen pericarp (Garcinia mangostana L.) have surfactant properties that can eliminate the smear layer assessed. 6% citric acid is a chelating agent which can eliminate the inorganic particles of the smear layer. Until now, the research on the differences of 0,78% saponin from mangosteen pericarp extract and 6% citric acid for cleanliness of cavity has never been done. Purpose: To see the differences between 0,78% saponin from mangosteen pericarp extract and 6% citric acid as cavity cleanser. Method: Eighteen human teeth with complete crown, no caries, and no fractures were randomized in 3 groups (n≥6), in this experiment use (n=6). The cavity was prepared using wheels bur for hand use instrument. After instrumentation, each cavity on the first group used 0,78% saponin from mangosteen pericarp extract as cavity cleanser, the second group used 6% citric acid as cavity cleanser, and the control group used aquadest. Then, the teeth were split to be observed on Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Result: For Mann- Whitney test there were significant differences just between 078% saponin from mangosteen pericarp extract with 6% citric acid, and 6% citric acid with aquadest, but not for 0,78% saponin from mangosteen pericarp extract with aquadest. Median value of 6% citric acid showed 2,000 which is the smallest value compared to the value of the other groups. Conclusion: The cleanliness of cavity with 6% citric acid is better than that with 0,78% saponin from mangosteen pericarp extract.
Yesilyurt C & Bulucu B. Bond strength of total-etch and self-etch denton adesif systems on peripheral and central dentinal tissue: A microtensile bond strength test. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7(2): 26-36.
Soetojo A. Penggunaan resin komposit dalam bidang konservasi gigi. Surabaya: Revka Petra Media; 2013. h. 175.
Sumawinata N. Senarai istilah kedokteran gigi, inggris-indonesia. Jakarta : EGC; 2004. h. 244.
Balaji TS. Effect of various root canal irrigants on removal of smear layer and debris – an SEM study. Pakistan Oral & Dental J 2010; 34(1): 205-210.
Farhad A & Elahi T. The effect of smear layer in apical seal endodontikally treated teeth . J Res Med Science 2004; 3: 28 -31.
Mohammed RA. The effects of acetic acid and chlorhexidine gluconate as a cavity cleanser on the shear bond strength of compomer restorations. J Bagh College Dentistry 2008; 20(2): 30-32.
Lessa FRC, Aranha AMF, Nogueira I, GiroI EMA, Hebling J, Costa CAS. Toxicity of chlorhexidine on odontoblast-like cells. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18(1): 20.
Khoswanto C, Arijani E, Soesilawati P. Uji sitotoksisitas dentin konditioner asam sitrat 40, 50, 60% menggunakan mtt assay. Surabaya: Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat Universitas Airlangga. 2006. h.6.
Violich DR, Chandler NP. The smear layer in endodontiks–a review. International Endodontik Journal 2010; 43: 2–15.
Takeda FH, Harashima T, Kimura Y. A comparative study of the removal of smear layer by three endodontik irrigants and two types of laser. IntEndod J 1999; 32: 23-29.
Hariharan VS, Nandlal B, Srilatha KT. Efficacy of various root canal irrigants on removal of smear layer in the primary root canals after hand instrumentation: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2010; 28: 271-277.
Guvsiputri A, Njoo MPS, Aylianawati, Nani I. Pembuatan sabun dengan lidah buaya (aloe vera) sebagai antiseptik alami. Widya Teknik 2013; 12(1): 11-21.
Ramayanti FE, Sudirman A, Prasetyo EP. Efektivitas ekstrak kulit manggis terhadap kebersihan saluran akar. Conservative Dentistry Journal 2014; 4(1): 12-17.
Rosida IY. Efektifvitas ekstrak daging buah lerak (Sapindus rarak) 0,01% sebagai dentin conditioner dalam menghilangkan smear layer. Skripsi Program Sarjana Strata-1 Pendidikan Kedokteran Gigi Universitas Jember, Jember. 2012.
Arabski M. Effects of saponins against clinical e. coli strains and eukaryotic cell line. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2012, 2012: 3.
Drukteinis S & Balciuniene I. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of aet instruments and k-flexofiles. Stomatologija, Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal 2006; 8: 70-75.
Juniarti DE, Samadi K, Sudirman A. Differences in cytotoxicity between 5% tetracycline hydrochloride and 15% EDTA as root canal irrigant. Dent. J. (Maj. Ked. Gigi) 2008; 41(2): 67-69.
Walton T & Mahmoud. Endodontiks principles and practice. Missouri: Saunders; 2009. h. 243-245.
Malheiros CF, Marques MM, Gavini G. In vitro evaluation of the cytotoxic effects of acid solutions used as canal irrigants . J Endodon 2005; 31(10): 746-748.
Purnamawati MMI. Konsentrasi efektif daya pembersih ekstrak buah mahkota dewa (phaleria marcocarpa, scheff (boerl)) sebagai bahan irigasi saluran akar. Tesis. Surabaya. Pasca Sarjana Universitas Airlangga. 2012.
Tang M & Suendo V. Pengaruh Penambahan Pelarut Organik Terhadap Tegangan Permukaan Larutan Sabun. Bandung: Prosiding Simposium Nasional Inovasi Pembelajaran dan Sains 2011 (SNIPS 2011).
Kjellin M. Surfactans from Renewable Resources. UK: John Wiley& Sons; 2010: 244.
CDJ by Unair is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1. The journal allows the author to hold the copyright of the article without restrictions.
2. The journal allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions