Search

Objectives: The presence of cariogenic biofilm could result in surface degradation of composite and ionomeric restorative materials. Thus, this study evaluated in situ the alterations in the surface microhardness of these materials under biofilm accumulation and cariogenic challenge., Methods: In a split-mouth, double-blind, cross-over study, 10 volunteers wore palatal intra-oral devices containing bovine enamel slabs restored with composite resin (CR - Z250) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI - Vitremer). Two phases of 14 days were carried out, one for each restorative material. In one side of the device, biofilm was allowed to accumulate under a plastic mesh, whereas in the opposing side, regular brushing was carried out 3 times/day with a dentifrice containing 1100 μg F/g as NaF. A 20% sucrose solution was applied extra-orally 10×/day on each restored dental slab. Knoop microhardness was used to calculate the percentage of surface hardness loss (%SHL)., Results: All materials showed a decrease in surface hardness after the in situ period. The restorative materials presented the following average for %SHL: RMGI without biofilm accumulation=8.9 and with biofilm accumulation=25.6, CR without biofilm accumulation=14.7 and with biofilm accumulation=17.0., Conclusion: Biofilm accumulation and the presence of cariogenic challenge promoted faster degradation of ionomeric materials, but this was not observed for composite resin., Clinical Significance: The oral environment affects the surface hardness of aesthetic restorative materials. Biofilm accumulation and cariogenic challenge promote surface degradation for ionomeric materials, but not for composite resin., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Since secondary caries is one of the main reasons for replacing restorations, this study assessed the effects of different restorative materials on the microbiological composition of dental biofilm and on enamel demineralisation around the restoration., Methods: A randomized, double-blind, split-mouth in situ design was conducted in one phase of 14 days, during which, 20 volunteers wore palatal devices containing five human dental enamel slabs. Each slab was randomly restored with one of the following materials: Filtek-Z-250/Single Bond, control group (composite resin), Permite (amalgam), Fuji II (encapsulated resin-modified glass ionomer), Vitremer (resin-modified glass ionomer) and Ketac Molar (conventional glass ionomer). The volunteers used fluoride dentifrice, 3x/day and a 20% sucrose solution was dripped onto the slabs 8x/day. The biofilm formed on the slabs was analyzed to determine the counts of total streptococci, mutans streptococci and lactobacilli. Enamel demineralisation was determined by cross-sectional microhardness (CSMH) at 20 and 70 microm from the margin of the restoration. Kruskal-Wallis and analysis of variance, followed by least mean squares (LMS) test, were used to evaluate microbiota and CSMH among the groups. The significance level used was 5%., Results: No statistically significant differences were found in the cariogenic microbiota grown on the slabs. At a 20-mum distance, only Fuji II statistically differed from the other groups, showing the lowest demineralisation. At 70 microm, Fuji II significantly inhibited demineralisation when compared to Permite, Filtek-Z-250 and Ketac Molar., Conclusions: In the context of fluoride dentifrice and under the cariogenic exposure conditions of this study, only the encapsulated resin-modified glass ionomer material provided additional protection against secondary caries.