Fulltext:
153878.pdf
Embargo:
until further notice
Size:
308.1Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Publisher’s version
Publication year
2015Source
Journal of Dental Research, 94, 1, (2015), pp. 62-8ISSN
Publication type
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Organization
Dentistry
Journal title
Journal of Dental Research
Volume
vol. 94
Issue
iss. 1
Page start
p. 62
Page end
p. 8
Subject
Radboudumc 0: Other Research RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Radboudumc 10: Reconstructive and regenerative medicine RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health SciencesAbstract
This in vitro study investigated whether restoration materials and adhesives influence secondary caries formation in gaps using a short-term in vitro biofilm model. Sixty enamel-dentin blocks were restored with 6 different restoration materials with or without adhesives (n = 10 per group) with a gap: 1) Clearfil AP-X composite, 2) Clearfil AP-X composite + SE Bond, 3) Clearfil AP-X composite + ProtectBond, 4) Filtek Silorane composite, 5) Filtek Silorane composite + Silorane System adhesive, or 6) Tytin amalgam. Specimens were subjected to an intermittent 1% sucrose biofilm model for 20 days to create artificial caries lesions. Lesion progression in the enamel-dentin next to the different materials was measured in lesion depth (LD) and mineral loss (ML) using transversal wavelength independent microradiography (T-WIM). A regression analysis was used to compare the LD and ML of the different restoration materials at 4 measurement locations: 1 location at the surface of the enamel, 1 location at the wall of the enamel, and 2 locations at the wall of the dentin. A statistically significant effect of AP-X composite with Protect Bond was found for LD and ML at the WallDentin1 location, leading to less advanced wall lesions. An additional finding was that gap size was also statistically significant at the 2 wall locations in dentin, leading to increasing lesion progression with wider gaps. In conclusion, adhesives can influence wall lesion development in gaps. Protect Bond showed significantly less caries progression compared to bare restoration materials or other adhesives in this short-term in vitro biofilm model.
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
- Academic publications [246764]
- Electronic publications [134215]
- Faculty of Medical Sciences [93461]
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.