Marginal adaptation and performance of bioactive dental restorative materials in deciduous and young permanent teeth

Abstract

Objective:The aim of this study was to investigate the adaptation of different types of restorations towards deciduous and young permanent teeth.Materials and Methods:Class V cavities were prepared in deciduous and young permanent teeth and filled with different materials (a conventional glass-ionomer, a resin-modified glass-ionomer, a poly-acid-modified composite resin and a conventional composite resin). Specimens were aged in artificial saliva for 1, 6, 12 and 18 months, then examined by SEM.Results:The composite resin and the polyacid-modified composite had better marginal adaptation than the glass-ionomers, though microcracks developed in the enamel of the tooth. The glass-ionomers showed inferior marginal quality and durability, but no microcracking of the enamel. The margins of the resin-modified glass-ionomer were slightly superior to the conventional glass-ionomer. Conditioning improved the adaptation of the composite resin, but the type of tooth made little or no difference to the performance of the restorative material. All materials were associated with the formation of crystals in the gaps between the filling and the tooth; the quantity and shape of these crystals varied with the material.Conclusions:Resin-based materials are generally better at forming sound, durable margins in deciduous and young permanent teeth than cements, but are associated with microcracks in the enamel. All fluoride-releasing materials give rise to crystalline deposits.

Ion migration from fluoride-releasing dental restorative materials into dental hard tissues

“…A recent SEM study showed that fluoride-releasing restorative materials caused the formation of crystals at the interface with the tooth [21]. This is probably associated with fluoride release and can be taken as an indication of the bioactivity of the material.…”

Preliminary Evidence That Bioactive Cements Occlude Artificial Marginal Gaps

“…Nevertheless, this study did not specifically examine for marginal gap closure, nor did it report or depict any closure of these artificial marginal gaps by the materials tested. Additionally, when examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), the marginal interfaces of glass ionomer, resin‐modified glass ionomer, polyacid‐modified composite resin (compomer), and resin composite restoratives (placed in cavity preparations in deciduous and early permanent teeth) also demonstrated the presence of various morphologies of crystalline deposits on the tooth interface . Nevertheless, that particular study also did not attempt to examine marginal gap closure, nor did it report or demonstrate any significant marginal closure by these materials.…”

Sealing Ability of Nano-ionomer in Primary Teeth: Anex vivoStudy

“…A study by Gjorgievska et al 29 showed that marginal adaptation of RMGICs in deciduous teeth was slightly inferior to that in immature permanent ones. The RMGICs tended to cause cracks adjacent to the interfacial region, but not in the material itself.…”