A Rühling1, J Wulf, C Schwahn, T Kocher. 1. Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University of Kiel, Germany. ruehling@konspar.uni-kiel.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In an in vitro study, the surface wear on cervical restorations and adjacent enamel and root cementum caused by different tooth-cleaning methods in simulated long-term therapy was investigated. METHODS: Cervical restorations of amalgam (Oralloy), modified composite resin (Dyract), glass-ionomer cement (ChemFill Superior), and composite (Tetric) were instrumented by POL (polishing), CUR+POL (curette and polishing), US+POL (ultrasonic device with polishing) and the polishing agents Cleanic and Proxyt in a computer-controlled test bench. Treatment time corresponding to a real-time period of 5 or 10 years. Substance loss from instrumented surfaces was measured with a digital gauge. A three-way anova was used in the statistical evaluation. RESULTS: The results showed that POL led to slight substance loss, which was greater using Cleanic (27 microm) than Proxyt (5 microm). CUR+POL produced a significantly greater substance loss than did US+POL, with 186 microm versus 35 microm on glass-ionomer cement, respectively, and 123 microm versus 18 microm, respectively, on root cementum, followed by composite (111 microm versus 27 microm, respectively), polyacid modified composite resin/compomer (89 microm versus 36 microm), amalgam (75 microm versus 19 microm), and enamel (32 microm versus 23 microm). CONCLUSIONS: As opposed to the use of US+POL or POL, substance loss on cervical restorations and especially root cementum must be expected to result from tooth-cleaning during long-term maintenance treatment using CUR+POL.
BACKGROUND: In an in vitro study, the surface wear on cervical restorations and adjacent enamel and root cementum caused by different tooth-cleaning methods in simulated long-term therapy was investigated. METHODS: Cervical restorations of amalgam (Oralloy), modified composite resin (Dyract), glass-ionomer cement (ChemFill Superior), and composite (Tetric) were instrumented by POL (polishing), CUR+POL (curette and polishing), US+POL (ultrasonic device with polishing) and the polishing agents Cleanic and Proxyt in a computer-controlled test bench. Treatment time corresponding to a real-time period of 5 or 10 years. Substance loss from instrumented surfaces was measured with a digital gauge. A three-way anova was used in the statistical evaluation. RESULTS: The results showed that POL led to slight substance loss, which was greater using Cleanic (27 microm) than Proxyt (5 microm). CUR+POL produced a significantly greater substance loss than did US+POL, with 186 microm versus 35 microm on glass-ionomer cement, respectively, and 123 microm versus 18 microm, respectively, on root cementum, followed by composite (111 microm versus 27 microm, respectively), polyacid modified composite resin/compomer (89 microm versus 36 microm), amalgam (75 microm versus 19 microm), and enamel (32 microm versus 23 microm). CONCLUSIONS: As opposed to the use of US+POL or POL, substance loss on cervical restorations and especially root cementum must be expected to result from tooth-cleaning during long-term maintenance treatment using CUR+POL.