Literature DB >> 25297114

Restoration materials and secondary caries using an in vitro biofilm model.

N K Kuper1, F H van de Sande2, N J M Opdam3, E M Bronkhorst3, J J de Soet4, M S Cenci2, M C D J N M Huysmans3.   

Abstract

This in vitro study investigated whether restoration materials and adhesives influence secondary caries formation in gaps using a short-term in vitro biofilm model. Sixty enamel-dentin blocks were restored with 6 different restoration materials with or without adhesives (n = 10 per group) with a gap: 1) Clearfil AP-X composite, 2) Clearfil AP-X composite + SE Bond, 3) Clearfil AP-X composite + ProtectBond, 4) Filtek Silorane composite, 5) Filtek Silorane composite + Silorane System adhesive, or 6) Tytin amalgam. Specimens were subjected to an intermittent 1% sucrose biofilm model for 20 days to create artificial caries lesions. Lesion progression in the enamel-dentin next to the different materials was measured in lesion depth (LD) and mineral loss (ML) using transversal wavelength independent microradiography (T-WIM). A regression analysis was used to compare the LD and ML of the different restoration materials at 4 measurement locations: 1 location at the surface of the enamel, 1 location at the wall of the enamel, and 2 locations at the wall of the dentin. A statistically significant effect of AP-X composite with Protect Bond was found for LD and ML at the WallDentin1 location, leading to less advanced wall lesions. An additional finding was that gap size was also statistically significant at the 2 wall locations in dentin, leading to increasing lesion progression with wider gaps. In conclusion, adhesives can influence wall lesion development in gaps. Protect Bond showed significantly less caries progression compared to bare restoration materials or other adhesives in this short-term in vitro biofilm model. © International & American Associations for Dental Research 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  composite resins; dental amalgam; dental caries; dental materials; dentin bonding agents; tooth demineralization

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25297114      PMCID: PMC4270806          DOI: 10.1177/0022034514553245

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Res        ISSN: 0022-0345            Impact factor:   6.116


  26 in total

1.  An in vitro biofilm model for enamel demineralization and antimicrobial dose-response studies.

Authors:  F H van de Sande; M S Azevedo; R G Lund; M C D N J M Huysmans; M S Cenci
Journal:  Biofouling       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.209

2.  The influence of bonding agents on the decision to replace composite restorations.

Authors:  Tijen Pamir; Aysegül Demirbas Kaya; B Güniz Baksi; Bilge Hakan Sen; Hayal Boyacioglu
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  2010 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.440

3.  Influence of amalgam, alloy, and mercury on the in vitro growth of Streptococcus mutans: I. Biological test system.

Authors:  L J Nunez; G Schmalz; J Hembree
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  1976 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.116

4.  The effect of adjacent dentine blocks on the demineralisation and remineralisation of enamel in vitro.

Authors:  R J M Lynch; J M Ten Cate
Journal:  Caries Res       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial.

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

6.  Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative system.

Authors:  Wen Lien; Kraig S Vandewalle
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 5.304

7.  Analyses of biofilms accumulated on dental restorative materials.

Authors:  Suzana Beatriz Portugal de Fúcio; Regina Maria Puppin-Rontani; Fabíola Galbiatti de Carvalho; Renata de Oliveira Mattos-Graner; Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho; Franklin Garcia-Godoy
Journal:  Am J Dent       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.522

8.  12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations.

Authors:  N J M Opdam; E M Bronkhorst; B A C Loomans; M C D N J M Huysmans
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2010-07-26       Impact factor: 6.116

9.  Streptococcal adhesion to novel low-shrink silorane-based restorative.

Authors:  Ralf Buergers; Wulf Schneider-Brachert; Sebastian Hahnel; Martin Rosentritt; Gerhard Handel
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2008-09-02       Impact factor: 5.304

10.  The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial.

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

View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  Models of Caries Formation around Dental Composite Restorations.

Authors:  J L Ferracane
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 6.116

2.  Biocompatibility and mechanical properties of an experimental E-glass fiber-reinforced composite for dentistry.

Authors:  Siti Sunarintyas; Widowati Siswomihardjo; James K H Tsoi; Jukka P Matinlinna
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2022-05-27

3.  Effects of S. mutans gene-modification and antibacterial calcium phosphate nanocomposite on secondary caries and marginal enamel hardness.

Authors:  Hong Chen; Yunhao Tang; Michael D Weir; Lei Lei; Radi Masri; Christopher D Lynch; Thomas W Oates; Ke Zhang; Tao Hu; Hockin H K Xu
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 4.036

4.  Development and calibration of biochemical models for testing dental restorations.

Authors:  Anqi Zhang; Ruoqiong Chen; Wondwosen Aregawi; Yiting He; Shuting Wang; Conrado Aparicio; Joel Rudney; Hooi Pin Chew; Alex S Fok
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 8.947

5.  Behavior of failed bonded interfaces under in vitro cariogenic challenge.

Authors:  Anelise F Montagner; Niek J M Opdam; Jan L Ruben; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Maximiliano S Cenci; Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 5.304

6.  Prevention of secondary caries by silver diamine fluoride.

Authors:  May Lei Mei; Irene Shuping Zhao; Leticia Ito; Edward Chin-Man Lo; Chun-Hung Chu
Journal:  Int Dent J       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 2.607

7.  Influence of Surface Properties on Adhesion Forces and Attachment of Streptococcus mutans to Zirconia In Vitro.

Authors:  Pei Yu; Chuanyong Wang; Jinglin Zhou; Li Jiang; Jing Xue; Wei Li
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Do Dental Resin Composites Accumulate More Oral Biofilms and Plaque than Amalgam and Glass Ionomer Materials?

Authors:  Ning Zhang; Mary A S Melo; Michael D Weir; Mark A Reynolds; Yuxing Bai; Hockin H K Xu
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 3.623

9.  Adherence of Streptococcus Mutans to Microhybrid and Nanohybrid Resin Composites and Dental Amalgam: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Fariba Motevasselian; Ensieh Zibafar; Esmail Yassini; Mansoreh Mirzaei; Naser Pourmirhoseni
Journal:  J Dent (Tehran)       Date:  2017-11

10.  Targeting the oral plaque microbiome with immobilized anti-biofilm peptides at tooth-restoration interfaces.

Authors:  Dina G Moussa; Conrado Aparicio
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.