K J Donly1, C Grandgenett. 1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio 78284, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the in vitro caries inhibition of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer-3M) and two compomers (Dyract-Dentsply; Compoglass-Ivoclar). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized Class V preparations were placed in 40 molars, the gingival margin placed below the cementoenamel junction. Randomly, 10 Vitremer, 10 Dyract and 10 Compoglass restorations were placed according to manufacturer's instructions, in 30 teeth. Ten teeth received P-50 composite resin (3M) restorations and acted as the control. All teeth had an acid-resistant varnish placed to within 1 mm of restoration margins and they were then placed into artificial saliva for 4 weeks, the saliva being replenished every 48 hours. All teeth were subjected to an artificial caries challenge (pH 4.4) for 5 days. Sections of 100 microns were obtained, photographed under polarized light microscopy, and then digitized to quantitate demineralized areas adjacent to the restoration. RESULTS: The mean (+/- S.D) area (microns 2) demineralization 100 microns from the dentin/gingival margin was: Vitremer 4965 +/- 841, Compoglass 4981 +/- 2209, Dyract 5375 +/- 516, P-50 8088 +/- 2083. ANOVA and Duncan's (P < 0.05) indicated all three fluoride-releasing materials examined in this study had significantly less demineralization adjacent to restoration margins than the P-50 composite resin control. Seventy percent of glass ionomer cement restorations demonstrated adjacent dentin inhibition zones, while no dentin inhibition zones were demonstrated with the compomer restorations.
PURPOSE: To examine the in vitro caries inhibition of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer-3M) and two compomers (Dyract-Dentsply; Compoglass-Ivoclar). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized Class V preparations were placed in 40 molars, the gingival margin placed below the cementoenamel junction. Randomly, 10 Vitremer, 10 Dyract and 10 Compoglass restorations were placed according to manufacturer's instructions, in 30 teeth. Ten teeth received P-50 composite resin (3M) restorations and acted as the control. All teeth had an acid-resistant varnish placed to within 1 mm of restoration margins and they were then placed into artificial saliva for 4 weeks, the saliva being replenished every 48 hours. All teeth were subjected to an artificial caries challenge (pH 4.4) for 5 days. Sections of 100 microns were obtained, photographed under polarized light microscopy, and then digitized to quantitate demineralized areas adjacent to the restoration. RESULTS: The mean (+/- S.D) area (microns 2) demineralization 100 microns from the dentin/gingival margin was: Vitremer 4965 +/- 841, Compoglass 4981 +/- 2209, Dyract 5375 +/- 516, P-50 8088 +/- 2083. ANOVA and Duncan's (P < 0.05) indicated all three fluoride-releasing materials examined in this study had significantly less demineralization adjacent to restoration margins than the P-50 composite resin control. Seventy percent of glass ionomer cement restorations demonstrated adjacent dentin inhibition zones, while no dentin inhibition zones were demonstrated with the compomer restorations.
Authors: L C Daniel; F C Araújo; B R Zancopé; F S Hanashiro; M Nobre-dos-Santos; M N Youssef; W C Souza-Zaroni Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2015-08-12
Authors: Rosa Maria Viana de Bragança Garcez; Marília Afonso Rabelo Buzalaf; Paulo Amarante de Araújo Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.698