Evaluation of Restorative Materials Containing Preventive Additives in a Secondary Caries Model in vitro

Abstract

The incorporation of antibacterial agents into dental restorative materials is a promising strategy for secondary caries prevention. Previously, Carolacton affected Streptococcus mutans biofilm formation on composite materials in vitro. The present study evaluated secondary caries formation adjacent to Carolacton-containing composites and conventional restorative materials using an artificial biofilm model. Standardized cavities were prepared in bovine dentin-enamel samples (n = 175) and restored with various dental materials (Tetric EvoCeram [T], GrandioSo composite without [G] and with Carolacton [GC], Grandio Flow without [F] and with Carolacton [FC], GrandioSo containing sodium fluoride [GNaF], and Ketac Fil [K]). After artificial aging, S. mutans was grown on the samples for 7 days. The investigation of gap sizes and secondary caries formation was performed using confocal laser scanning microscopy and transversal microradiography. Median gap size in enamel was 9.4 µm (interquartile range 7.9–12.7). Compared to all other groups significant differences in gap sizes could be observed for Ketac Fil (p < 0.001; Mann-Whitney test). Only GrandioSo composite containing 30% sodium fluoride and Ketac Fil showed significantly smaller lesion areas in enamel (p < 0.001; Mann-Whitney test) than all other groups which was confirmed by the mineral loss data (p < 0.001; Mann-Whitney test). Based on the present in vitro results, it seems that Carolacton-containing composite in the current formulation within the shown simplified monoculture biofilm model is not able to prevent caries formation compared to fluoride-releasing restorative materials.

Effect of Polyols and Selected Dental Materials on the Ability to Create a Cariogenic Biofilm–On Children Caries-Associated Streptococcus Mutans Isolates

“…The available in vitro studies found no significant difference between various composites on the demineralization of surface and wall lesions. Some studies revealed that fluoride-containing materials (e.g., glass ionomers) reduce secondary caries progression [25][26][27]. A recent systematic review, of in situ studies, could not identify significant differences in secondary caries development in surrounding hard tooth tissues when different materials were used [28].…”

Prevalence Of Secondary Caries In Children- Aretrospective Study

“…According to Isabel Metz et al, [(Metz et al, 2015)] there was much preventive measure taken after the primary restoration and yet there was prevalence of secondary caries 72.5% of the restoration failed within the first 2 years and most common restoration used during the primary restoration was composite According to Ivana Nedeljkovic et al [ (Nedeljkovic et al, 2020)] that there was a significant presence secondary caries prevalence with composite restoration and class 2 restoration. Franziska Hetrodt et al [ (Hetrodt et al, 2019)]. , have investigated that secondary caries formation is more prevalent in composite restoration and prepared in standardized cavities.Haitham Askar et al [(Askar et al, 2020)].…”

Secondary caries: what is it, and how it can be controlled, detected, and managed?

“…The available studies found no significant difference between various resin materials on the mineral loss of both surface and wall lesions. However, amalgam and fluoride-containing materials (e.g., glass ionomers) were able to reduce secondary caries progression in some studies [11,33,34]. It is unclear how these findings relate to clinical settings, e.g., patients using fluoridated toothpaste, etc.…”

“…It is unclear how these findings relate to clinical settings, e.g., patients using fluoridated toothpaste, etc. Generally, large methodological heterogeneity applies to these in vitro studies, with various restorative protocols, methods to simulate caries, and techniques to evaluate mineral loss having been used [35][36][37].…”