Cariostatic effect of fluoride-containing restorative systems associated with dentifrices on root dentin

Objective. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the interaction between two sources of fluoride (restorative systems and dentifrices) in inhibiting artificial root caries development. Methods. One hundred and eighty tooth segments were embedded in polyester resin, and sanded flat. Cylindrical cavities 1.0 mm-deep and 1.5 mm-diameter were prepared in root dentin and randomly restored by fluoride-containing restorative systems: Ketac-fil/Espe (Ke), Fuji II LC/GC Corp (Fj), F2000/3M (F2), Surefil/Dentsply (Su) or a control: Filtek Z250/3M (Z2). Ten experimental groups were made to test the association among the five restorative systems and two dentifrices: with F - (Sensodyne Baking Soda) or without F- (Sensodyne Original) (n = 18). After surface polishing, a 1 mm-wide margin around the restorations was demarcated and initial dentin surface Knoop microhardness values (KHNi) were obtained. The specimens were submitted to a pH-cycling model, and to applications of slurries of dentifrice. Afterwards the final dentin surface Knoop microhardness values (KHNf) were measured. Results. The differences between KHNi and KHNf, and the covariate KHNi were considered by the ANCOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). The interaction between restorative system and dentifrice was statistically significant (p = 0.0026). All restorative systems provided some protection against artificial caries challenge when associated with the fluoride-containing dentifrice treatment. The means (standard deviation) of reductions in Knoop hardness values for systems associated with the fluoride-containing dentifrice were: Ke: 40.0(1.02)a, Fj: 41.9(1.02)b, F2: 43.3(1.04)c, Su: 43.5(1.00)c, Z2: 44.0(1.02)c; and with the non-fluoride-containing dentifrice were: Ke: 42.9(1.02)a, Fj: 44.7(1.01)b, F2: 45.2(1.09)bc, Su: 46.0(0.99)c, Z2: 46.6(0.99)c (statistical differences were expressed by different letters). Conclusion. The cariostatic effect shown by the fluoride-containing dentifrice could enhance that shown by Ketac-fil and Fuji II LC, and could mask that shown by F2000. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effects of bleaching with carbamide peroxide gels on microhardness of restoration materials

The objective of this in vitro study was to quantitatively assess the effects of bleaching with 10 and 15% carbamide peroxide (CP) on restoration materials by performing superficial microhardness analysis. Acrylic cylindrical containers (4 x 2 mm) were filled with the following restoration products: Charisma (Heraues Kulzer, Vila Santa Catarina, São Paulo, Brazil), Durafill VS (Heraeus Kulzer), Vitremer (3M, Sumaré, São Paulo, Brazil), Dyract (Dentsply, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), and Permite C (SDI, São Pauio, São Paulo, Brazil). Sixty samples were prepared of each restoration material. Twenty samples received bleaching treatment with 10% CP, 20 samples received bleaching treatment with 15% CP, and 20 samples were kept submerged in artificial saliva, which was replaced daily. The treatment consisted of immersion of the specimens in 1 cm3 of CP at 10 and 15% for 6 hours per day during 3 weeks, whereupon the test specimens were washed, dried, and kept immersed in artificial saliva for 18 hours. Then the test and control specimens were analyzed using a microhardness gauge. The Knoop Hardness Number (KHN) was taken for each test and control specimen at five different locations by applying a 25 g force for 20 seconds. The values obtained were transformed into KHNs and the mean was calculated. The data were submitted to statistical analysis by analysis of variance and Tukey test, p < .05. The means/standard deviations were as follows: Charisma: CP 10% 38.52/4.08, CP 15% 34.31/6.13, saliva 37.36/4.48; Durafill VS: CP 10% 18.65/1.65, CP 15% 19.38/2.23, saliva 18.27/1.43; Dyract AP: CP 10% 30.26/2.81, CP 15% 28.64/5.44, saliva 33.88/3.46; Vitremer: CP 10% 28.15/3.04, CP 15% 17.40/3.11, saliva 40.93/4.18; and Permite C: CP 10% 183.50/27.09, CP 15% 159.45/5.78, saliva 215.80/26.15. A decrease in microhardness was observed for the materials Dyract AP, Vitremer, and Permite C after treatment with CP at 10 and 15%, whereas no effect on either of the two composites (Charisma and Durafill) was verified. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The application of the carbamide peroxide gels at 10 and 15% did not alter the microhardness of the composite resins Charisma and Durafill. In situ and clinical studies are necessary to enable one to conclude that the reduction in microhardness of the materials effectively results in clinical harm to the restorations.

Microhardness and fluoride release of restorative materials in different storage media

This study evaluated the surface microhardness and fluoride release of 5 restorative materials - Ketac-Fil Plus, Vitremer, Fuji II LC, Freedom and Fluorofil - in two storage media: distilled/deionized water and a pH-cycling (pH 4.6). Twelve specimens of each material, were fabricated and the initial surface microhardness (ISM) was determined in a Shimadzu HMV-2000 microhardness tester (static load Knoop). The specimens were submitted to 6- or 18-h cycles in the tested media. The solutions were refreshed at the end of each cycle. All solutions were stored for further analysis. After 15-day storage, the final surface microhardness (FSM) and fluoride release were measured. Fluoride dose was measured with a fluoride-specific electrode (Orion 9609-BN) and digital ion analyzer (Orion 720 A). The variables ISM, FSM and fluoride release were analyzed statistically by analysis of variance and Tukey's test (p<0.05). There was significant difference in FSM between the storage media for Vitremer (pH 4.6 = 40.2 ± 1.5; water = 42.6 ± 1.4), Ketac-Fil Plus (pH 4.6 = 73.4 ± 2.7; water = 58.2 ± 1.3) and Fluorofil (pH 4.6 = 44.3 ± 1.8; water = 38.4 ± 1.0). Ketac-Fil Plus (9.9 ± 18.0) and Fluorofil (4.4 ± 1.3) presented higher fluoride release in water, whereas Vitremer (7.4 ± 7.1), Fuji II LC (5.7 ± 4.7) and Freedom (2.1 ± 1.7) had higher fluoride release at pH 4.6. Microhardness and fluoride release of the tested restorative materials varied according to the storage medium.

Length of resin tags in pit-and-fissure sealants: all-in-one self-etching adhesive vs phosphoric acid etching.

PURPOSE: To investigate the penetration (tags) of adhesive materials into enamel etched with phosphoric acid or treated with a self-etching adhesive, before application of a pit-and-fissure sealant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample comprised six study groups with six specimens each. Before pit-and-fissure sealing with the materials Clinpro SealantTM (Groups I and II), Vitro Seal ALPHA (Groups III and IV) and Fuji II LC (Groups V and VI), the teeth in Groups I, III, and V were etched with 35% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds. Teeth in Groups II, IV, and VI received application of the self-etching adhesive Adper Prompt L-Pop. The treated teeth were sectioned buccolingually, ground to 100-microm thickness, decalcified, and analyzed by conventional light microscopy at 400x magnification. RESULTS: The teeth etched with phosphoric acid exhibited significantly greater penetration than specimens treated with self-etching adhesive. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: When compared with enamel treated with a self-etching adhesive, the penetration (tags) of adhesive materials into enamel was greater when applied on enamel etched with phosphoric acid.

In vitro-evaluation of secondary caries formation around restoration.

The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate demineralization around restorations. Class V preparations were made on the buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth. TPH (Group 1), Fuji II LC (Group 2), Tetric (Group 3), Dyract (Group 4), GS 80 (Group 5) and Chelon Fil (Group 6) were randomly placed in equal numbers of teeth. The teeth were submitted to a pH-cycling model associated with a thermocycling model. Sections were made and the specimens were examined for the presence of demineralization under polarized light microscopy. Demineralization was significantly reduced with Chelon Fil (Group 6). Furthermore, a similar inhibitory effect on the development of demineralization was observed in Groups 2, 4 and 5.

Influence of bleaching treatment on flexural resistance of hybrid materials.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the flexural resistance of three types of restorative materials: compomer (Freedom), resin-modified glass-ionomer (Vitremer) and composite resin (Esthet-X), observing whether the application of bleaching agent can cause alterations of their flexural properties. Sixty samples were made using a 10 x 1 x 1 mm brass mold, and divided into three groups: G1- Freedom (SDI); G2- Vitremer (3M ESPE); G3- Esthet-X (Dentsply). On half of the samples of each group (10 samples) the bleaching treatment was applied and the other half used as control, was stored in distilled water at a temperature of 37 degrees C. Whiteness HP Maxx bleaching system was applied on the sample surface following the manufacturer's recommendations, simulating the bleaching treatment at the clinic. After this period, a flexural strength (three-point bending) test was conducted using (EMIC DL 1000) machine until the samples fractured. The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey tests. Of the restorative materials studied, G3-(87.24 +/- 31.40 MPa) presented the highest flexural strength, followed by G1-(61.67 +/- 21.32 MPa) and G2-(61.67 +/- 21.32 MPa). There was a statistical difference in flexural strength after the bleaching treatment. It was concluded that the use of a beaching agent can promote significant alteration of the flexural strength of these restorative materials.

Desgaste e rugosidade superficial de um cimento de ionômero de vidro nanoparticulado

To compare the abrasion wear resistance and superficial roughness of different glass ionomer cements used as restorative materials, focusing on a new nanoparticulate material. Material and Method: Three glass ionomer cements were evaluated: Ketac Molar, Ketac N100 and Vitremer (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), as well as the Filtek Z350 (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). For each material were fabricated circular specimens (n=12), respecting the handling mode specified by the manufacturer, which were polished with sandpaper disks of decreasing grit. The wear was determined by the amount of mass (M) lost after brushing (10,000 cycles) and the roughness (Ra) using a surface roughness tester. The difference between the Minitial and Mfinal (ΔM) as well as beroughness of aesthetic restorative materials: an in vitro comparison. SADJ. 2001; 56(7): 316-20. 11. Yip HK, Peng D, Smales RJ. Effects of APF gel on the physical structure of compomers and glass ionomer cements. Oper. Dent. 2001; 26(3): 231-8. 12. Ma T, Johnson GH, Gordon GE. Effects of chemical disinfectants on the surface characteristics and color of denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77(2): 197-204. 13. International organization for standardization. Technical specification 14569-1. Dental Materials – guidance on testing of wear resistance – PART I: wear by tooth brushing. Switzerland: ISO; 1999. 14. Bollen CML, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater.1997; 13(4): 258-9. 15. Kielbassa AM, Gillmann C, Zantner H, Meyer-Lueckel H, Hellwig E, Schulte-Mönting J. Profilometric and microradiographic studies on the effects of toothpaste and acidic gel abrasivity on sound and demineralized bovine dental enamel. Caries Res. 2005; 39(5): 380-6. 16. Tanoue N, Matsumara H, Atsuta M. Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84(1): 93-7. 17. Heath JR, Wilson HJ. Abrasion of restorative materials by toothpaste. J Oral Rehabil. 1976; 3(2): 121-38. 18. Frazier KB, Rueggeberg FA, Mettenburg DJ. Comparasion of wearresistance of class V restorative materials. J Esthet Dent. 1998; 10(6): 309-14. 19. Momoi Y, Hirosakil K, Kohmol A, McCabe JF. In vitro toothebrushdentifrrice abrasion of resin-modified glass ionomers. Dent Mater. 1997; 13(2): 82-8. 20. Turssi CP, Magalhães CS, Serra MC, Rodrigues Jr.AL. Surface roughness assessment of resin-based materials during brushing preceded by pHcycling simulations. Oper Dent. 2001; 26(6): 576-84. 21. Wang L, Cefaly DF, Dos Santos JL, Dos Santos JR, Lauris JR, Mondelli RF, et al. In vitro interactions between lactic acid solution and art glassionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009; 17(4): 274-9. 22. Carvalho FG, Fucio SB, Paula AB, Correr GM, Sinhoreti MA, PuppinRontani RM. Child toothbrush abrasion effect on ionomeric materials. J Dent Child (Chic). 2008; 75(2): 112-6. 23. Coutinho E, Cardoso MV, De Munck J, Neves AA, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, et al. Bonding effectiveness and interfacial characterization of a nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater. 2009; 25(11): 1347-57. tween Rainitial and Rafinal (ΔRa) were also used for statistical analysis (α=0.05). Results: Except for the composite, significant loss of mass was observed for all glass ionomer cements and the ΔM was comparable for all of them. Significant increase in roughness was observed only for Vitremer and Ketac N100. At the end of the brushing cycle, just Vitremer presented surface roughness greater than the composite resin. Conclusion: All glass ionomer cements showed significant weight loss after 10,000 cycles of brushing. However, only Vitremer showed an increase of roughness greater than the Z350 resin, while the nanoparticulate cement Ketac N100 showed a smooth surface comparable to the composite.