Reactionary dentinogenesis after applying restorative materials and bioactive dentin matrix molecules as liners in deep cavities prepared in nonhuman primate teeth

Objective: the aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the response of the pulp-dentin complex following application of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement, calcium hydroxide hard-setting cement and EDTA-soluble preparation of dentine matrix proteins (ESDP) in deep cavities prepared in non-human primate teeth. Methods: Eighteen deep Class V buccal cavities were prepared in premolars of four capuccin monkeys. In Groups 1 and 2, the cavity floor was lined with ESDP or a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitrebond - 3M ESPE), respectively. In Group 3 (control), the cavity was lined with a hard setting calcium hydroxide cement (Dycal - Dentsply). The cavities were subsequently filled with amalgam. After 6 months, the animals were sacrificed and the teeth were prepared for microscopic assessment. Six-micron thick serial sections were stained with H/E, Masson's trichrome and Brown & Brenn techniques. Results: No inflammatory pulpal response was observed for all experimental and control Groups. However, the amount of reactionary dentin deposition differed between groups in the rank order ESDP (Group 1) > calcium hydroxide (Group 3) > resin-modified glass-ionomer (Group 2). These differences were statistically significant. Conclusions: All materials were biocompatible when applied in deep cavities. ESDP stimulated higher deposition of reactionary dentin matrix than Vitrebond and Dycal.

Radiopacity of esthetic restorative materials compared with human tooth structure

Purpose : To compare the radiopacity of 13 restorative materials, (a conventional glass-ionomer cement, three resin-modified glass-ionomer cements, six polyacid-modified resin-based composites, and three resin-based composites) to sound tooth structure. Materials and Methods: 315 specimens were made of the restorative materials (n= 21), of 2 min height and 4.1 mm diameter. Radiographs were taken of the specimens, together with the tooth structure sample and an aluminum step wedge. The radiopacity values of each specimen were taken using a transmission densitometer. Results: ANOVA and Tukey's test (95% level of confidence) revealed that, except for a resin-based composite, a polyacid-modified resin-based composite, a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and the conventional glass-ionomer cement, all the evaluated restorative materials were more radiopaque than the tooth structure.

Fluoride release by restorative materials before and after a topical application of fluoride gel

The release of fluoride from restorative materials (Vitremer, Ketac-Fil, Fuji II LC and Freedom) was evaluated during two 15-day periods, before and after a topical application of acidulated phosphate fluoride gel (APF). For each material, 6 specimens were made, which were immersed in 2 ml of deionized water. The fluoride concentration dosages in the solutions were read at intervals of 24 hours for 15 days. After this period, the specimens of each material received treatment with APF gel for 4 minutes and the fluoride released was analyzed at 24-hour intervals during the following 15 days. The analysis of variance and the Tukey test (p < 0.05) showed that the total mean fluoride released during the initial 15 days was greater for Vitremer and Ketac-Fil and lower for Fuji II LC and Freedom; and in the final 15 days there was a difference in release readings, with the greatest value for Vitremer, followed by Fuji II LC, Ketac-Fil and Freedom. The comparison of the results between the 1st day and the 16th day (after gel application) showed a greater fluoride release on the 16th day for Vitremer, Fuji II LC and Freedom and was equal for Ketac-Fil. Although all the materials evaluated gained fluoride with the application of APF, the data suggest that the resin-modified ionomers are more efficient in releasing fluoride to the medium than the other materials.

Radiopacity of restorative materials using digital images

The radiopacity of esthetic restorative materials has been established as an important requirement, improving the radiographic diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of six restorative materials using a direct digital image system, comparing them to the dental tissues (enamel-dentin), expressed as equivalent thickness of aluminum (millimeters of aluminum). Five specimens of each material were made. Three 2-mm thick longitudinal sections were cut from an intact extracted permanent molar tooth (including enamel and dentin). An aluminum step wedge with 9 steps was used. The samples of different materials were placed on a phosphor plate together with a tooth section, aluminum step wedge and metal code letter, and were exposed using a dental x-ray unit. Five measurements of radiographic density were obtained from each image of each item assessed (restorative material, enamel, dentin, each step of the aluminum step wedge) and the mean of these values was calculated. Radiopacity values were subsequently calculated as equivalents of aluminum thickness. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant differences in radiopacity values among the materials (P<0.0001). The radiopacity values of the restorative materials evaluated were, in decreasing order: TPH, F2000, Synergy, Prisma Flow, Degufill, Luxat. Only Luxat had significantly lower radiopacity values than dentin. One material (Degufill) had similar radiopacity values to enamel and four (TPH, F2000, Synergy and Prisma Flow) had significantly higher radiopacity values than enamel. In conclusion, to assess the adequacy of posterior composite restorations it is important that the restorative material to be used has enough radiopacity, in order to be easily distinguished from the tooth structure in the radiographic image. Knowledge on the radiopacity of different materials helps professionals to select the most suitable material, along with other properties such as biocompatibility, adhesion and esthetic.

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.

Compressive strength of esthetic restorative materials polymerized with quartz-tungsten-halogen light and blue LED

Este estudo comparou a resistência à compressão de uma resina composta e de um compômero, fotoativados com luz halógena convencional de quarto-tungstênio (QTH) (XL 300, 3M/SPE) e LED azul (SmartLite PS; Dentsply/De Trey). Foram confeccionados 40 espécimes em forma de disco usando uma matriz bipartida de politetrafluoretileno (4,0 mm de diâmetro x 8,0 mm de altura) em que o material foi inserido incrementalmente. O tempo de polimerização de cada incremento foi de 40 s para a luz halógena convencional e de 10 s para o LED. Os espécimes foram aleatoriamente alocados em 4 grupos (n=10), de acordo com a fonte de luz e com o material restaurador. Depois de armazenadas em água destilada a 37°C ± 2°C por 24 h, a resistência à compressão dos espécimes foi testada em uma máquina universal de ensaios com célula de carga de 500 kgf a uma velocidade de carregamento de 0,5 mm/min. Os dados (em MPa) foram analisados estatisticamente por ANOVA e teste de Student-Newman-Keuls (p<0,05). Para a resina composta, a fotopolimerização com luz halógena não produziu diferença estatisticamente significante (p>0,05) em sua resistência à compressão quando comparada à fotopolimerização com LED. Contudo, a fotopolimerização do compômero com a luz halógena resultou em uma resistência à compressão significativamente maior que a feita o LED (p>0,05). A resina composta apresentou resistência à compressão significativamente maior que a do compômero, independente da fonte de luz. Concluiu-se que a resistência à compressão dos materiais fotopolimerizados com luz halógena e LED foi influenciada pela densidade de energia empregada e pela composição química dos materiais restauradores estéticos.