Dentin demineralization inhibition at restoration margins of Vitremer, Dyract and Compoglass

Kevin J Donly, Craig Grandgenett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the in vitro caries inhibition of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer-3M) and two compomers (Dyract-Dentsply; Compoglass-Ivoclar). Materials and Methods: Standardized Class V preparations were placed in 40 molars, the gingival margin placed below the cementoenamel junction. Randomly, 10 Vitremer, 10 Dyract and 10 Compoglass restorations were placed according to manufacturer's instructions, in 30 teeth. Ten teeth received P-50 composite resin (3M) restorations and acted as the control. All teeth had an acid-resistant varnish placed to within 1 mm of restoration margins and they were then placed into artificial saliva for 4 weeks, the saliva being replenished every 48 hours. All teeth were subjected to an artificial caries challenge (pH 4.4) for 5 days. Sections of 100 μm were obtained, photographed under polarized light microscopy, and then digitized to quantitate demineralized areas adjacent to the restoration. Results: The mean (± S.D.) area (μm2) demineralization 100 μm from the dentin/gingival margin was: Vitremer 4965 ± 841, Compoglass 4981 ± 2209, Dyract 5375 ± 516, P-50 8088 ± 2083. ANOVA and Duncan's (P< 0.05) indicated all three fluoride-releasing materials examined in this study had significantly less demineralization adjacent to restoration margins than the P-50 composite resin control. Seventy percent of glass ionomer cement restorations demonstrated adjacent dentin inhibition zones, while no dentin inhibition zones were demonstrated with the compomer restorations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)245-248
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Dentistry
Volume11
Issue number5
StatePublished - 1998

Fingerprint

Dentin
Tooth
Glass Ionomer Cements
Compomers
Tooth Cervix
Artificial Saliva
Polarization Microscopy
Paint
Fluorides
Saliva
Analysis of Variance
Acids
Dyract
Compoglass
Vitremer
P50 composite resin

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Dentin demineralization inhibition at restoration margins of Vitremer, Dyract and Compoglass. / Donly, Kevin J; Grandgenett, Craig.

In: American Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 11, No. 5, 1998, p. 245-248.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d7218361a8184261926e6cae16e0bed6,
title = "Dentin demineralization inhibition at restoration margins of Vitremer, Dyract and Compoglass",
abstract = "Purpose: To examine the in vitro caries inhibition of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer-3M) and two compomers (Dyract-Dentsply; Compoglass-Ivoclar). Materials and Methods: Standardized Class V preparations were placed in 40 molars, the gingival margin placed below the cementoenamel junction. Randomly, 10 Vitremer, 10 Dyract and 10 Compoglass restorations were placed according to manufacturer's instructions, in 30 teeth. Ten teeth received P-50 composite resin (3M) restorations and acted as the control. All teeth had an acid-resistant varnish placed to within 1 mm of restoration margins and they were then placed into artificial saliva for 4 weeks, the saliva being replenished every 48 hours. All teeth were subjected to an artificial caries challenge (pH 4.4) for 5 days. Sections of 100 μm were obtained, photographed under polarized light microscopy, and then digitized to quantitate demineralized areas adjacent to the restoration. Results: The mean (± S.D.) area (μm2) demineralization 100 μm from the dentin/gingival margin was: Vitremer 4965 ± 841, Compoglass 4981 ± 2209, Dyract 5375 ± 516, P-50 8088 ± 2083. ANOVA and Duncan's (P< 0.05) indicated all three fluoride-releasing materials examined in this study had significantly less demineralization adjacent to restoration margins than the P-50 composite resin control. Seventy percent of glass ionomer cement restorations demonstrated adjacent dentin inhibition zones, while no dentin inhibition zones were demonstrated with the compomer restorations.",
author = "Donly, {Kevin J} and Craig Grandgenett",
year = "1998",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "245--248",
journal = "American Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0894-8275",
publisher = "Mosher and Linder, Inc",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dentin demineralization inhibition at restoration margins of Vitremer, Dyract and Compoglass

AU - Donly, Kevin J

AU - Grandgenett, Craig

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - Purpose: To examine the in vitro caries inhibition of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer-3M) and two compomers (Dyract-Dentsply; Compoglass-Ivoclar). Materials and Methods: Standardized Class V preparations were placed in 40 molars, the gingival margin placed below the cementoenamel junction. Randomly, 10 Vitremer, 10 Dyract and 10 Compoglass restorations were placed according to manufacturer's instructions, in 30 teeth. Ten teeth received P-50 composite resin (3M) restorations and acted as the control. All teeth had an acid-resistant varnish placed to within 1 mm of restoration margins and they were then placed into artificial saliva for 4 weeks, the saliva being replenished every 48 hours. All teeth were subjected to an artificial caries challenge (pH 4.4) for 5 days. Sections of 100 μm were obtained, photographed under polarized light microscopy, and then digitized to quantitate demineralized areas adjacent to the restoration. Results: The mean (± S.D.) area (μm2) demineralization 100 μm from the dentin/gingival margin was: Vitremer 4965 ± 841, Compoglass 4981 ± 2209, Dyract 5375 ± 516, P-50 8088 ± 2083. ANOVA and Duncan's (P< 0.05) indicated all three fluoride-releasing materials examined in this study had significantly less demineralization adjacent to restoration margins than the P-50 composite resin control. Seventy percent of glass ionomer cement restorations demonstrated adjacent dentin inhibition zones, while no dentin inhibition zones were demonstrated with the compomer restorations.

AB - Purpose: To examine the in vitro caries inhibition of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer-3M) and two compomers (Dyract-Dentsply; Compoglass-Ivoclar). Materials and Methods: Standardized Class V preparations were placed in 40 molars, the gingival margin placed below the cementoenamel junction. Randomly, 10 Vitremer, 10 Dyract and 10 Compoglass restorations were placed according to manufacturer's instructions, in 30 teeth. Ten teeth received P-50 composite resin (3M) restorations and acted as the control. All teeth had an acid-resistant varnish placed to within 1 mm of restoration margins and they were then placed into artificial saliva for 4 weeks, the saliva being replenished every 48 hours. All teeth were subjected to an artificial caries challenge (pH 4.4) for 5 days. Sections of 100 μm were obtained, photographed under polarized light microscopy, and then digitized to quantitate demineralized areas adjacent to the restoration. Results: The mean (± S.D.) area (μm2) demineralization 100 μm from the dentin/gingival margin was: Vitremer 4965 ± 841, Compoglass 4981 ± 2209, Dyract 5375 ± 516, P-50 8088 ± 2083. ANOVA and Duncan's (P< 0.05) indicated all three fluoride-releasing materials examined in this study had significantly less demineralization adjacent to restoration margins than the P-50 composite resin control. Seventy percent of glass ionomer cement restorations demonstrated adjacent dentin inhibition zones, while no dentin inhibition zones were demonstrated with the compomer restorations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032174376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032174376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10388385

AN - SCOPUS:0032174376

VL - 11

SP - 245

EP - 248

JO - American Journal of Dentistry

JF - American Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0894-8275

IS - 5

ER -