OBJECTIVES: Many restorative materials are claimed to be successful in preventing bacterial microleakage and minimizing pulp inflammation. However, information regarding the in vivo performance of materials in comparison with each other is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the pulp response of nine restorative materials when placed in non-exposed monkey cavities. METHODS: 279 standardized non-exposed Class V cavities, were prepared into buccal dentin. Cavities were restored with a number of materials in the following categories: Zinc oxide eugenol (ZnOE), Calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)(2)], zinc phosphate (ZP), Resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), Composite resin (CR), Bonded amalgam (BA), Gutta-percha (GP), Compomer and Silicate. Pulp tissues were collected and evaluated at short, intermediate and long-term intervals according to ISO guidelines; employing histomorphometric analysis, Spearman's rho and ANOVA statistics. Pulp responses were categorized according to FDI, ISO and ADA standards. Bacteria were detected using McKay stains. RESULTS: Pulp inflammation was found to be correlated to bacterial microleakage around the restoration (p < or =0.0001). The frequency of bacterial microleakage was found to vary between restorative materials (p < or =0.0001). In rank order of preventing bacterial microleakage from best to the worst; RMGI (100%), BA (88%), ZnOE (86%), CR (80%), GP (64%), Ca(OH)(2) (58%), compomer (42%), silicate (36%) and ZP (0%). SIGNIFICANCE: The most effective restorative materials to prevent bacterial microleakage and pulp injury from inflammatory activity were RMGI, BA, ZnOE and CR restorations.
OBJECTIVES: Many restorative materials are claimed to be successful in preventing bacterial microleakage and minimizing pulp inflammation. However, information regarding the in vivo performance of materials in comparison with each other is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the pulp response of nine restorative materials when placed in non-exposed monkey cavities. METHODS: 279 standardized non-exposed Class V cavities, were prepared into buccal dentin. Cavities were restored with a number of materials in the following categories: Zinc oxide eugenol (ZnOE), Calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)(2)], zinc phosphate (ZP), Resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), Composite resin (CR), Bonded amalgam (BA), Gutta-percha (GP), Compomer and Silicate. Pulp tissues were collected and evaluated at short, intermediate and long-term intervals according to ISO guidelines; employing histomorphometric analysis, Spearman's rho and ANOVA statistics. Pulp responses were categorized according to FDI, ISO and ADA standards. Bacteria were detected using McKay stains. RESULTS: Pulp inflammation was found to be correlated to bacterial microleakage around the restoration (p < or =0.0001). The frequency of bacterial microleakage was found to vary between restorative materials (p < or =0.0001). In rank order of preventing bacterial microleakage from best to the worst; RMGI (100%), BA (88%), ZnOE (86%), CR (80%), GP (64%), Ca(OH)(2) (58%), compomer (42%), silicate (36%) and ZP (0%). SIGNIFICANCE: The most effective restorative materials to prevent bacterial microleakage and pulp injury from inflammatory activity were RMGI, BA, ZnOE and CR restorations.