Françoise H van de Sande1, Niek J M Opdam2, Gert Jan Truin2, Ewald M Bronkhorst2, Johannes J de Soet3, Maximiliano S Cenci4, Marie-Charlotte Huysmans2. 1. Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Pedodontology, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, 6525 EX Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Gonçalves Chaves 457, 96015-560 Pelotas, RS, Brazil. Electronic address: vandesandefh@gmail.com. 2. Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Pedodontology, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, 6525 EX Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Gustav Mahler Laan 3004, 1081 LA Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Gonçalves Chaves 457, 96015-560 Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The effect of direct restorative materials on caries lesion formation was investigated with an 8-week in situ study with split-mouth design, testing the hypothesis that no difference in mineral loss next to a restoration would be found between different composite-based-materials and amalgam. METHODS: Six groups (n=18) of restored dentine samples were prepared using amalgam, a microhybrid, a nanohybrid and a silorane composite. The composites were adhesively bonded with systems with or without an antibacterial monomer (Clearfil-SE-Protect, Clearfil-SE-bond, respectively), except for the silorane group (Silorane-System-Adhesive). Non-restored dentine samples were used as control (primary caries). Samples were inserted into slots, in lower prosthesis especially made for the experiment. Subjects were instructed to dip the lower prosthesis in a sucrose solution 4 times per day. At baseline and 8 weeks, samples were radiographed extra-orally and the integrated mineral loss was calculated. Data were statistically analyzed using multiple linear regression with a multilevel model (p=0.05). RESULTS: Nine subjects were selected, and only outer lesions were observed. The hypothesis was partially rejected, as the microhybrid composite bonded with the antibacterial system and the nanohybrid composite presented statistically significant lower mineral loss compared to amalgam. Also, no significant differences were seen for these groups compared to control. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, the restorative material may influence outer lesion progression. Amalgam was not found to be related to lower secondary caries progression in dentine compared to composite-based materials after 8 weeks in situ. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although patient factors play a major role in caries progression, the restorative material may affect outer secondary lesion progression.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The effect of direct restorative materials on caries lesion formation was investigated with an 8-week in situ study with split-mouth design, testing the hypothesis that no difference in mineral loss next to a restoration would be found between different composite-based-materials and amalgam. METHODS: Six groups (n=18) of restored dentine samples were prepared using amalgam, a microhybrid, a nanohybrid and a silorane composite. The composites were adhesively bonded with systems with or without an antibacterial monomer (Clearfil-SE-Protect, Clearfil-SE-bond, respectively), except for the silorane group (Silorane-System-Adhesive). Non-restored dentine samples were used as control (primary caries). Samples were inserted into slots, in lower prosthesis especially made for the experiment. Subjects were instructed to dip the lower prosthesis in a sucrose solution 4 times per day. At baseline and 8 weeks, samples were radiographed extra-orally and the integrated mineral loss was calculated. Data were statistically analyzed using multiple linear regression with a multilevel model (p=0.05). RESULTS: Nine subjects were selected, and only outer lesions were observed. The hypothesis was partially rejected, as the microhybrid composite bonded with the antibacterial system and the nanohybrid composite presented statistically significant lower mineral loss compared to amalgam. Also, no significant differences were seen for these groups compared to control. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, the restorative material may influence outer lesion progression. Amalgam was not found to be related to lower secondary caries progression in dentine compared to composite-based materials after 8 weeks in situ. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although patient factors play a major role in caries progression, the restorative material may affect outer secondary lesion progression.
Authors: Mario Bernardo; Henrique Luis; Michael D Martin; Brian G Leroux; Tessa Rue; Jorge Leitão; Timothy A DeRouen Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: R P Sousa; I C J Zanin; J P M Lima; S M L C Vasconcelos; M A S Melo; H C P Beltrão; L K A Rodrigues Journal: J Dent Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Flávio F Demarco; Marcos B Corrêa; Maximiliano S Cenci; Rafael R Moraes; Niek J M Opdam Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Ralf Buergers; Wulf Schneider-Brachert; Sebastian Hahnel; Martin Rosentritt; Gerhard Handel Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2008-09-02 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Jennifer Ann Soncini; Nancy Nairi Maserejian; Felicia Trachtenberg; Mary Tavares; Catherine Hayes Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: N K Kuper; F H van de Sande; N J M Opdam; E M Bronkhorst; J J de Soet; M S Cenci; M C D J N M Huysmans Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Audrey C C Hollanders; Nicolien K Kuper; Tamires T Maske; Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans Journal: Caries Res Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 4.056