Cavity Preparation and Influence of Restorative Materials on the Prevention of Secondary Caries

Objective: This in vitro study evaluated the influence of cavity preparation using the Er:YAG laser and restorative materials containing fluoride on preventing caries lesions. Background: It has been suggested that cavity preparation using the Er:YAG laser has a potential for improving resistance to secondary caries on enamel. Methods: Forty unerupted human third molars teeth were sectioned into 72 blocks of dental enamel and distributed into two groups to prepare cavities measuring (1.6 mm diameter) with diamond burs (DB) or Er:YAG laser (LA; 6 Hz, 300 mJ, 47 J/cm(2)). After that, each group was divided into three subgroups and restored with a glass-ionomer cement (GI), a resin-modified glass-ionomer (RM), or a composite resin (CR). Blocks were thermal cycled and submitted to a pH challenge to develop artificial caries-like lesions. Lesions were evaluated by Knoop microhardness test. An average of four indentations was used. Statistical analyses were performed by ANOVA followed by Tukey's test. Results: The results (in Knoop hardness number) for DB cavity preparation were GI, 235.5 (+/- 75.5); RM, 137.1 (+/- 64.1); and CR, 39.3 (+/- 26.5). For LA cavity preparation, the results were GI, 410.0 (+/- 129.7); RM, 310.3 (+/- 119.5); and CR, 96.4 (+/- 57.4). Conclusions: There was less development of caries lesion around LA-prepared cavities than around the DB-prepared cavities; however, no synergistic cariostatic effect was observed between the Er:YAG laser and glass ionomer cement.

Esthetic restorative materials and opposing enamel wear

This in vitro study compared the effects of a gold alloy (Degulor M), four dental ceramics (IPS Empress, IPS Empress 2, Duceram Plus, Duceram. LFC) and a laboratory-processed composite (Targis) on the wear of human enamel. The amount of wear of the enamel (dental cusps) and restorative materials (disks) were tested in water at 37 degrees C under standard load (20 N), with a chewing rate of 1.3 Hz and was determined after 150,000 and 300,000 cycles. Before the test, the average surface roughness of the restorative materials was analyzed using the Ra parameter. The results of this study indicate that Targis caused enamel wear similar to Degulor M and resulted in significantly less wear than all the ceramics tested. IPS Empress provoked the greatest amount of enamel wear and Degulor M caused less vertical dimension loss. Targis could be an appropriate alternative material to ceramic, because it is esthetic and produces opposing enamel wear comparable to gold alloy.

Effect of prolonged erosive pH cycling on different restorative materials

This in vitro study evaluated the effect of a prolonged erosive pH cycling on the superficial microhardness change (SMHC) and the erosive wear of different restorative materials. Eighty enamel specimens with prepared cavities of 1.5 x 1.5 mm were randomly divided into eight groups according to the restorative materials used for the fillings (RMGI - resin-modified glass-ionomer, CGI - conventional glass-ionomer, CR- composite resin, A - amalgam) and immersion media used (ERO - erosive medium or SAL - artificial saliva). During 35 days, half of the specimens were immersed in a cola drink (ERO), for 5 min, three times a day, and they remained in SAL between the erosive cycles. The other half of the specimens was immersed in SAL only, for the entire experimental period (control). Data were tested for significant differences by anova and Tukey`s tests (P < 0.05). Scanning electron microscopy images were made to illustrate the enamel erosive wear and restorative materials alterations. The mean SMHC (%) and mean erosive wear (mu m) of the materials were: RMGI-ERO (30/0.5); CGI-ERO (37/0.5); CR-ERO (-0.3/0.3); A-ERO (-4/0.3); RMGI-SAL (4/0.4); CGI-SAL (-6/0.4); CR-SAL (-3/0.2) and A-SAL (2/0.4). Scanning electron microscopy images showed pronounced enamel erosive wear on groups submitted to erosive pH cycling when compared with groups maintained in saliva. In conclusion, the prolonged pH cycling promoted significantly higher alterations (SMHC and erosive wear) on the glass-ionomer cements than the CR and amalgam.

Effect of erosive pH cycling on different restorative materials and on enamel restored with these materials

This in vitro study evaluated the effect of erosive pH cycling on the percentage of surface micro-hardness change (%SMHC) and wear of different restorative materials and bovine enamel restored with these materials. Eighty enamel specimens were randomly divided into eight groups according to the restorative materials and immersion media used: GI/GV-resin-modifled glass-ionomer, GII/GVI-conventional glass-ionomer, GIII/GVII-resin composite and GIV/GVIII-amalgam. Over a period of seven days, groups GI to GIV were immersed in a cola drink (ERO) for 5 minutes, 3x/day and kept in artificial saliva between erosive cycles. Groups GV to GVIII were immersed in artificial saliva (SAL) throughout the entire experimental period (control). Data were tested for significant differences using ANOVA and Tukey`s tests (p < 0.05). For %SMHC, considering the restorative materials, no significant differences were detected among the materials and immersion media. Mean wear was higher for the resin modified glass ionomer cement when compared to conventional cement, but those materials did not significantly differ from the others. For enamel analyses, erosive pH cycling promoted higher wear and %SMHC compared to saliva. There were no significant differences in wear and %SMHC of enamel around the different restorative materials, regardless of the distance from the restorative material (50, 150 or 300 mu m). In conclusion, there were only subtle differences among the materials, and these differences were not able to protect the surrounding enamel from erosion.

In situ effect of an erosive challenge on different restorative materials and on enamel adjacent to these materials

Objectives: This in situ study evaluated the effect of an erosive challenge on different restorative materials and on enamel restored with these materials, as well as the ability of these materials to protect the adjacent enamel against erosion. Methods: Ten volunteers wore palatal devices with eight bovine enamel blocks, randomly selected and distributed into two vertical rows, corresponding to the following groups: GI/GV, resin-modified glass ionomer; GII/GVI, conventional glass ionomer; GIII/GVII, composite resin; GIV/GVIII, amalgam. one row (corresponding to groups I-IV) was immersed in a cola drink and the other row (corresponding to groups V-VIII) was subjected to saliva only. The palatal device was continuously worn for 7 days and only half of the appliance (groups I-IV) was immersed in the soft drink (Coca-Cola (R), 150 mL) for 5 min, three times a day. The study variables comprised the wear (profilometry, mu m) and the percentage of surface microhardness change (%SMHC). Data were tested for significant differences by two-way ANOVA and Tukey`s tests (p < 0.05). Results: Considering the restorative materials, for %SMHC and wear, there were no differences among the materials and between the saliva and the erosive challenge. For enamel analyses, the erosive challenge promoted a higher wear and %SMHC of the enamel than did the saliva. There were no significant differences in wear and %SMHC of the enamel adjacent to the different restorative materials. Conclusion: This research data suggest that there is little %SMHC and wear of the studied restorative materials and none of them had a preventive effect against erosion on adjacent enamel, which showed a pronounced wear. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Round robin test: wear of nine dental restorative materials in six different wear simulators - supplement to the round robin test of 2005.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to submit the same materials that were tested in the round robin wear test of 2002/2003 to the Alabama wear method. METHODS: Nine restorative materials, seven composites (belleGlass, Chromasit, Estenia, Heliomolar, SureFil, Targis, Tetric Ceram) an amalgam (Amalcap) and a ceramic (IPS Empress) have been submitted to the Alabama wear method for localized and generalized wear. The test centre did not know which brand they were testing. Both volumetric and vertical loss had been determined with an optical sensor. After completion of the wear test, the raw data were sent to IVOCLAR for further analysis. The statistical analysis of the data included logarithmic transformation of the data, the calculation of relative ranks of each material within each test centre, measures of agreement between methods, the discrimination power and coefficient of variation of each method as well as measures of the consistency and global performance for each material. RESULTS: Relative ranks of the materials varied tremendously between the test centres. When all materials were taken into account and the test methods compared with each other, only ACTA agreed reasonably well with two other methods, i.e. OHSU and ZURICH. On the other hand, MUNICH did not agree with the other methods at all. The ZURICH method showed the lowest discrimination power, ACTA, IVOCLAR and ALABAMA localized the highest. Material-wise, the best global performance was achieved by the leucite reinforced ceramic material Empress, which was clearly ahead of belleGlass, SureFil and Estenia. In contrast, Heliomolar, Tetric Ceram and especially Chromasit demonstrated a poor global performance. The best consistency was achieved by SureFil, Tetric Ceram and Chromasit, whereas the consistency of Amalcap and Heliomolar was poor. When comparing the laboratory data with clinical data, a significant agreement was found for the IVOCLAR and ALABAMA generalized wear method. SIGNIFICANCE: As the different wear simulator settings measure different wear mechanisms, it seems reasonable to combine at least two different wear settings to assess the wear resistance of a new material.

Effect of Two Restorative Materials on Root Dentine Erosion

This study sought to evaluate the microhardness of root dentine adjacent to glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations after erosive challenge. A crossover study was performed in two phases of 4 consecutive days each. One hundred twelve bovine root dentine slabs were obtained, and standardized box-shaped cavities were prepared at center of each specimen. The prepared cavities were randomly restored with glass-ionomer cement or composite resin. The slabs were randomly assigned among 14 volunteers, which wore intraoral palatal device containing four restored root dentin slabs. Starting on the second day, half of the palatal acrylic devices were immersed extraorally in a lemonade-like carbonated soft drink for 90 s, four times daily for 3 days. Alter 3-day wash-out, dentine slabs restored with the alternative material were placed into palatal appliance and the volunteers started the second phase of this study. After erosive challenges. microhardness measurements were performed. Regardless of the restorative material employed, eroded specimens demonstrated lower microhardness value (p < 0.0001). At eroded condition examined in this study, dentine restored with glass-ionomer cement showed higher microhardness values (p < 0.0001). It may be concluded that the glass-ionomer cement decreases the progression of root dentine erosion at restoration margin. (C) 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 93B 304-305, 2010

Effect of pH variations in a cycling model on the properties of restorative materials

This study evaluated the effect of cycling various pH demineralizing solutions on the surface hardness, fluoride release and surface properties of restorative materials (Ketac-Fil Plus, Vitremer, Fuji II LC, Freedom and Fluorofil). Thirty specimens of each material were made and the surface hardness measured. The specimens were randomized into five groups according to the pH (4.3; 4.6; 5.0; 5.5 and 6.2) of the demineralizing solution. The specimens were submitted to pH-cycling for 15 days. The specimens remained in the demineralizing solution for six hours and in the remineralizing solution for 18 hours. Then, the surface hardness (SH) was remeasured and the surface properties were assessed. Fluoride release was determined daily. Data from SH and the percentage of alteration in surface hardness were analyzed by analysis of variance (p < 0.05); the Kruskal-Wallis test was performed for the fluoride release results. When hardness was compared, the variation in pH led to a positive correlation for glass ionomer cements and a negative correlation for fluoride release. For polyacid-modified resin composites, a negative correlation was found with regards to fluoride release; no significant correlation was observed for hardness. Surface properties were influenced: an acidic pH led to a greater alteration, except for polyacid-modified resin composites. The pH of the demineralizing solution influenced fluoride release from the tested materials. The pH variation altered hardness and surface properties of glass ionomer cements but did not influence polyacid-modified resin composites.

COLOR STABILITY of SEALED COMPOSITE RESIN RESTORATIVE MATERIALS AFTER ULTRAVIOLET ARTIFICIAL AGING and IMMERSION IN STAINING SOLUTIONS

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Surface Roughness Analysis of Four Restorative Materials Exposed to 10% and 15% Carbamide Peroxide

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of carbamide peroxide (CP) on surfaces of different restorative materials. Porcelain, composite resin, glass ionomer, and amalgam were analyzed in this study. Surface roughness (Ra) was measured before and after treatment with 10% and 15% CP. Fifteen percent CP increased Ra values in both the glass ionomer and amalgam subgroups, while 10% CP increased Ra values in the glass ionomer subgroup only. Changes in restorative material surfaces can be more severe when bleaching is completed without a clinician's supervision. Hence, thorough patient examinations must be done before, during, and after bleaching treatment. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:155-157

In Vitro Evaluation of Surface Roughness and Microhardness of Restorative Materials Submitted to Erosive Challenges

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Fluoride release/recharge from restorative materials: effect of fluoride gels and time

This study examined the differences in fluoride release and recharge among four restorative materials following treatment with APF or neutral fluoride gel for one or four minutes. Specimens were immersed in 2 mL of deionized water, while fluoride release was measured at 24-hour intervals for 15 days using an ion-selective electrode and analyzer. The materials were then treated with the fluoride gels. The fluoride release was measured for 15 days. ANOVA (p<0.05) showed higher fluoride release for Ketac-Fil before fluoride application and for Vitremer and Fuji 11 LC after application of APF gel. APF gel yielded higher fluoride release when compared to neutral gel, regardless of the material. Fluoride recharge and release was greater after the four-minute APF gel application, with no difference between the times of application for the neutral gel (p>0.05), except for Ketac-Fil. The pattern of release before and after application of the gels was similar and was higher at day 16 compared to day one for the APF gel for resin materials, with higher release at day 15 compared to the initial for Fuji 11 LC and Vitremer. Et was concluded that RM-GICs were the most effective materials with regards to fluoride release after application of APF gel for four minutes.

Effect of prolonged erosive pH cycling on different restorative materials

This in vitro study evaluated the effect of a prolonged erosive pH cycling on the superficial microhardness change (SMHC) and the erosive wear of different restorative materials. Eighty enamel specimens with prepared cavities of 1.5 x 1.5 mm were randomly divided into eight groups according to the restorative materials used for the fillings (RMGI - resin-modified glass-ionomer, CGI - conventional glass-ionomer, CR- composite resin, A - amalgam) and immersion media used (ERO - erosive medium or SAL - artificial saliva). During 35 days, half of the specimens were immersed in a cola drink (ERO), for 5 min, three times a day, and they remained in SAL between the erosive cycles. The other half of the specimens was immersed in SAL only, for the entire experimental period (control). Data were tested for significant differences by anova and Tukey's tests (P < 0.05). Scanning electron microscopy images were made to illustrate the enamel erosive wear and restorative materials alterations. The mean SMHC (%) and mean erosive wear (mu m) of the materials were: RMGI-ERO (30/0.5); CGI-ERO (37/0.5); CR-ERO (-0.3/0.3); A-ERO (-4/0.3); RMGI-SAL (4/0.4); CGI-SAL (-6/0.4); CR-SAL (-3/0.2) and A-SAL (2/0.4). Scanning electron microscopy images showed pronounced enamel erosive wear on groups submitted to erosive pH cycling when compared with groups maintained in saliva. In conclusion, the prolonged pH cycling promoted significantly higher alterations (SMHC and erosive wear) on the glass-ionomer cements than the CR and amalgam.

In situ effect of an erosive challenge on different restorative materials and on enamel adjacent to these materials

Objectives: This in situ study evaluated the effect of an erosive challenge on different restorative materials and on enamel restored with these materials, as well as the ability of these materials to protect the adjacent enamel against erosion.Methods: Ten volunteers wore palatal devices with eight bovine enamel blocks, randomly selected and distributed into two vertical rows, corresponding to the following groups: GI/GV, resin-modified glass ionomer; GII/GVI, conventional glass ionomer; GIII/GVII, composite resin; GIV/GVIII, amalgam. one row (corresponding to groups I-IV) was immersed in a cola drink and the other row (corresponding to groups V-VIII) was subjected to saliva only. The palatal device was continuously worn for 7 days and only half of the appliance (groups I-IV) was immersed in the soft drink (Coca-Cola (R), 150 mL) for 5 min, three times a day. The study variables comprised the wear (profilometry, mu m) and the percentage of surface microhardness change (%SMHC). Data were tested for significant differences by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p < 0.05).Results: Considering the restorative materials, for %SMHC and wear, there were no differences among the materials and between the saliva and the erosive challenge. For enamel analyses, the erosive challenge promoted a higher wear and %SMHC of the enamel than did the saliva. There were no significant differences in wear and %SMHC of the enamel adjacent to the different restorative materials.Conclusion: This research data suggest that there is little %SMHC and wear of the studied restorative materials and none of them had a preventive effect against erosion on adjacent enamel, which showed a pronounced wear. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effect of erosive pH cycling on different restorative materials and on enamel restored with these materials

This in vitro study evaluated the effect of erosive pH cycling on the percentage of surface micro-hardness change (%SMHC) and wear of different restorative materials and bovine enamel restored with these materials. Eighty enamel specimens were randomly divided into eight groups according to the restorative materials and immersion media used: GI/GV-resin-modifled glass-ionomer, GII/GVI-conventional glass-ionomer, GIII/GVII-resin composite and GIV/GVIII-amalgam. Over a period of seven days, groups GI to GIV were immersed in a cola drink (ERO) for 5 minutes, 3x/day and kept in artificial saliva between erosive cycles. Groups GV to GVIII were immersed in artificial saliva (SAL) throughout the entire experimental period (control). Data were tested for significant differences using ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p < 0.05). For %SMHC, considering the restorative materials, no significant differences were detected among the materials and immersion media. Mean wear was higher for the resin modified glass ionomer cement when compared to conventional cement, but those materials did not significantly differ from the others. For enamel analyses, erosive pH cycling promoted higher wear and %SMHC compared to saliva. There were no significant differences in wear and %SMHC of enamel around the different restorative materials, regardless of the distance from the restorative material (50, 150 or 300 mu m). In conclusion, there were only subtle differences among the materials, and these differences were not able to protect the surrounding enamel from erosion.