Lina H. AlHudaithy
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Lina H. AlHudaithy has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Abdullah Saleh Aljamhan
Restorative Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 12372, Saudi Arabia
2 shared publications - Alhanouf A. AlHussaini
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, USA
2 shared publications - Mohammed. S. Bin-Shuwaish
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P.O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia
2 shared publications - Shamma A. AlDukhiel
College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2 shared publications - Ali Alrahlah
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, Engineer Abdullah Bugshan Research Chair for Dental and Oral Rehabilitation, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 16 July 2021
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Oral Health
- Vol. 21 (1) , 1-9
Effects of different antibacterial disinfectants on microleakage of bulk-fill composite bonded to different tooth structures
Background: This in-vitro study aimed to investigate the effect of two different antibacterial disinfectants on the microleakage performance of newly developed bulk-fill composite, bonded to different tooth structures. Methods: Class V cavities were prepared in 30 sound premolar teeth, with enamel occlusal margins (OM) and dentin cervical margins (CM). Two disinfectants, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and Listerine Miswak (ListM), were used. Teeth were divided into three groups (n = 10): G1, Control; G2, CHX; and G3, ListM. Disinfectants were applied to the cavity preparation walls after they were etched with 35% phosphoric acid. The Single Bond Universal adhesive system was then used, and teeth were restored with Filtek One Bulk Fill composite. Samples were examined, after thermocycling aging, by stereomicroscopy for the evaluation of marginal dye penetration. Results: The highest mean microleakage score was reported in the CM of G1 (2.60 ± 1.174), which was significant compared with that of G2 only (p = 0.02). OM in G1 showed no microleakage, with no significant differences found among groups (χ2 = 1.39, p = 0.50). No significant differences were reported between G2 and G3 (p = 0.45 OM; p = 0.17 CM). Conclusions: Cavity pretreatment with CHX is not significantly different to pretreatment with CHX. In contrast, CHX improved the cervical marginal seal as compare to the control group (G1).
- 16 July 2021
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Oral Health
- Vol. 21 (1) , 1-9
Open AccessEffects of different antibacterial disinfectants on microleakage of bulk-fill composite bonded to different tooth structures
Background: This in-vitro study aimed to investigate the effect of two different antibacterial disinfectants on the microleakage performance of newly developed bulk-fill composite, bonded to different tooth structures. Methods: Class V cavities were prepared in 30 sound premolar teeth, with enamel occlusal margins (OM) and dentin cervical margins (CM). Two disinfectants, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and Listerine Miswak (ListM), were used. Teeth were divided into three groups (n = 10): G1, Control; G2, CHX; and G3, ListM. Disinfectants were applied to the cavity preparation walls after they were etched with 35% phosphoric acid. The Single Bond Universal adhesive system was then used, and teeth were restored with Filtek One Bulk Fill composite. Samples were examined, after thermocycling aging, by stereomicroscopy for the evaluation of marginal dye penetration. Results: The highest mean microleakage score was reported in the CM of G1 (2.60 ± 1.174), which was significant compared with that of G2 only (p = 0.02). OM in G1 showed no microleakage, with no significant differences found among groups (χ2 = 1.39, p = 0.50). No significant differences were reported between G2 and G3 (p = 0.45 OM; p = 0.17 CM). Conclusions: Cavity pretreatment with CHX is not significantly different to pretreatment with CHX. In contrast, CHX improved the cervical marginal seal as compare to the control group (G1).
- Open Access
- 1 October 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in The Saudi Dental Journal
- Vol. 33 (7) , 503-510
An in vitro evaluation of microleakage of resin based composites bonded to chlorhexidine-pretreated dentin by different protocols of a universal adhesive system
This study compared microleakage of different resin based composite (RBC) materials bonded to dentin, after chlorhexidine (CHX) application, by different adhesion protocols of a universal adhesive system. Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 40 premolar teeth. The “etch-and-rinse” technique of a universal bond adhesive system (Single Bond Universal Adhesive) was used on buccal preparations, while the “self-etch” protocol was used on the lingual surfaces. Two RBCs, one bulk fill (Filtek Bulk Fill [FBF]) and one conventional (Filtek Z350 XT [Z350XT]), were used. Teeth were divided into two groups of 20 teeth each, 10 per each RBC (n = 10): (1) control; and (2) pretreatment with 2% CHX. For FBF groups, teeth were restored with a single increment; however, for Z350XT, a layering technique was used. Teeth were aged by thermo-cycling and prepared for microleakage testing. Dye penetration was evaluated and scored from 0 to 4. Data were analyzed at a significance level of P < 0.05. The highest microleakage mean scores were found in the control group of the etched margins for both RBCs (2.80 ± 1.033 FBF and 2.10 ± 1.370 Z350XT). The CHX-pretreated group showed significantly lower microleakage than the control for FBF only (P = 0.008). No significant difference was found between groups for the “self-etch” protocol (χ2 = 0.884, P = 0.08). No significant differences were found between FBF and Z350XT in all study groups (P > 0.2). When the “self-etch” protocol of the universal adhesive system was used, dentin microleakage was not affected by CHX-pretreatment when teeth were restored with bulk fill or conventional RBCs. In the “etch-and-rinse” protocol, CHX application improved the marginal seal before restoration with bulk fill material. However, in the absence of CHX, the “etch-and-rinse” protocol negatively affected marginal integrity.
- 1 October 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in The Saudi Dental Journal
- Vol. 33 (7) , 503-510
Open AccessAn in vitro evaluation of microleakage of resin based composites bonded to chlorhexidine-pretreated dentin by different protocols of a universal adhesive system
This study compared microleakage of different resin based composite (RBC) materials bonded to dentin, after chlorhexidine (CHX) application, by different adhesion protocols of a universal adhesive system. Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 40 premolar teeth. The “etch-and-rinse” technique of a universal bond adhesive system (Single Bond Universal Adhesive) was used on buccal preparations, while the “self-etch” protocol was used on the lingual surfaces. Two RBCs, one bulk fill (Filtek Bulk Fill [FBF]) and one conventional (Filtek Z350 XT [Z350XT]), were used. Teeth were divided into two groups of 20 teeth each, 10 per each RBC (n = 10): (1) control; and (2) pretreatment with 2% CHX. For FBF groups, teeth were restored with a single increment; however, for Z350XT, a layering technique was used. Teeth were aged by thermo-cycling and prepared for microleakage testing. Dye penetration was evaluated and scored from 0 to 4. Data were analyzed at a significance level of P < 0.05. The highest microleakage mean scores were found in the control group of the etched margins for both RBCs (2.80 ± 1.033 FBF and 2.10 ± 1.370 Z350XT). The CHX-pretreated group showed significantly lower microleakage than the control for FBF only (P = 0.008). No significant difference was found between groups for the “self-etch” protocol (χ2 = 0.884, P = 0.08). No significant differences were found between FBF and Z350XT in all study groups (P > 0.2). When the “self-etch” protocol of the universal adhesive system was used, dentin microleakage was not affected by CHX-pretreatment when teeth were restored with bulk fill or conventional RBCs. In the “etch-and-rinse” protocol, CHX application improved the marginal seal before restoration with bulk fill material. However, in the absence of CHX, the “etch-and-rinse” protocol negatively affected marginal integrity.