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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 245-248 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | American Journal of Dentistry |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| State | Published - 1998 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -