PURPOSE: To compare the effects of two materials, Biodentine and conventional glass-ionomer cement (CGIC), on secondary caries formation around restorations when used as a dentin replacement material. METHODS: 30 approximal cavities were prepared on mesial and distal surfaces of 15 caries-free human premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic or periodontal reasons. Cavities were filled with A: Biodentine as a base + Filtek Z250 composite (n = 15) or B: CGIC as a base + Filtek Z250 composite (n = 15). The materials were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. Teeth were thermocycled, and placed in a demineralizing solution for 5 weeks. Secondary caries formation was assessed using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) II and quantitative computer- aided image measurement of caries depth. RESULTS: The computer-aided measurements showed that the Biodentine group had significantly lower lesion depth measurements than the CGIC group (P = 0.004). However, there was no significant difference among the groups based on the ICDAS II scores (P > 0.05).
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of two materials, Biodentine and conventional glass-ionomer cement (CGIC), on secondary caries formation around restorations when used as a dentin replacement material. METHODS: 30 approximal cavities were prepared on mesial and distal surfaces of 15 caries-free human premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic or periodontal reasons. Cavities were filled with A: Biodentine as a base + Filtek Z250 composite (n = 15) or B: CGIC as a base + Filtek Z250 composite (n = 15). The materials were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. Teeth were thermocycled, and placed in a demineralizing solution for 5 weeks. Secondary caries formation was assessed using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) II and quantitative computer- aided image measurement of caries depth. RESULTS: The computer-aided measurements showed that the Biodentine group had significantly lower lesion depth measurements than the CGIC group (P = 0.004). However, there was no significant difference among the groups based on the ICDAS II scores (P > 0.05).