Are S-PRG Based Composites Able to Resist and Protect the Adjacent Enamel Against Erosive Wear?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bianca Tozi Portaluppe Bergantin ◽  
Camilla Cristina Di Leone ◽  
Thiago Cruvinel da Silva ◽  
Linda Wang ◽  
Marília Afonso Rabelo Buzalaf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Erosive Wear ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Tooth Wear ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Final Profile ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract This in-vitro study evaluated the resistance of S-PRG-based-composites against erosive wear and their protective effect on enamel adjacent to restoration. Bovine-enamel-blocks were randomized into 12 groups (n=10/group), according to the factors material and type of wear (erosion-e or erosion+abrasion-a): S-PRG-based-composite-Beautifil II®(SPRGe/SPRGa); S-PRG-based bulk-fill-Beautifil Bulk Restorative®(SPRGBFe/SPRGBFa); composite-Filtek Z350 XT®(RCe/RCa); bulk-fill-composite-Filtek Bulk Fill®(BFe and BFa); glass-ionomer cement-EQUIA Forte®(GICe/GICa); resin-modified glass-ionomer cement-Riva®(RMGICe/RMGICa). Standardized cavities were prepared in specimens and restored. Initial profile was performed on the material and on the adjacent enamel at distances of 100/200/300/600 and 700μm. Specimens were immersed in 0.5%citric-acid (2min-6x/day-during 5days), and abrasive challenge was performed using a toothbrushing-machine (1min-after erosive challenge). Final profile was obtained following initial. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey-test (α<0.05). On erosion, the GICe and RMGICe groups presented greater loss of material compared to other groups; up to 300μm away from the restoration, GICe and SPRGBFe were able to promote less enamel loss than composite groups. For erosion+abrasion S-PRG-based groups showed intermediate material wear compared to GICs (higher wear) and composites (less wear); there was no difference of enamel wear adjacent to restorations among groups. It is concluded that S-PRG-based-composites are a good alternative for restorative treatment of erosive tooth wear.Clinical Significance: S-PRG-based composite restorations are able to diminish surrounding enamel erosive wear, similarly to glass ionomer cement, with the advantage of being more resistant to erosive challenge. Therefore, this material is a potential option to restore advanced erosion lesions in patients with etiological factors still present.

scholarly journals In vitro and in vivo evaluations of glass-ionomer cement containing chlorhexidine for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 541-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristiane Duque ◽  
Kelly Limi Aida ◽  
Jesse Augusto Pereira ◽  
Gláucia Schuindt Teixeira ◽  
Angela Scarparo Caldo-Teixeira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals Marginal Leakage of Endodontic Temporary Restorative Materials around Access Cavities Prepared with Pre-Endodontic Composite Build-Up: An In Vitro Study

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1700
Author(s):  
Atsushi Kameyama ◽  
Aoi Saito ◽  
Akiko Haruyama ◽  
Tomoaki Komada ◽  
Setsuko Sugiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Zinc Oxide ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Zinc Oxide Eugenol ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study aimed to examine the marginal seal between various commercial temporary restorative materials and exposed dentin/built-up composite. Sixty bovine incisors were cut above the cemento-enamel junction, and half of the dentin was removed to form a step, which was built up using flowable resin composite. The root canals were irrigated, filled with calcium hydroxide, and sealed using one of six temporary sealing materials (hydraulic temporary restorative material, temporary stopping material, zinc oxide eugenol cement, glass-ionomer cement, auto-cured resin-based temporary restorative material, and light-cured resin-based temporary restorative material) (n = 10 for each material). The samples were thermocycled 500 times and immersed in an aqueous solution of methylene blue. After 2 days, they were cut along the long axis of the tooth and the depth of dye penetration was measured at the dentin side and the built-up composite side. For the margins of the pre-endodontic resin composite build-up, the two resin-based temporary restorative materials showed excellent sealing. Hydraulic temporary restorative material had a moderate sealing effect, but the sealing effect of both zinc oxide eugenol cement and glass-ionomer cement was poorer.

Biocompatibility of a Conventional Glass Ionomer, Ceramic Reinforced Glass Ionomer, Giomer and Resin Composite to Fibroblasts: In vitro Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Tamilselvam ◽  
MJ Divyanand ◽  
P Neelakantan
Keyword(s):  
Cell Viability ◽  
Mtt Assay ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: This aim of this study was at compare the fibroblast cytotoxicicty of four restorative materials - a conventional glass ionomer cement (GC Fuji Type II GIC), a ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cement (Amalgomer), a giomer (Beautifil II) and a resin composite (Filtek Z350) at three different time periods (24, 48 and 72 hours). Method: The succinyl dehydrogenase (MTT) assay was employed. Cylindrical specimens of each material (n=15) were prepared and stored in Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium, following which L929 fibroblasts were cultured in 96 well plates. After 24 hours of incubation, the MTT assay was performed to detect the cell viability. The method was repeated after 48 and 72 hours. The impact of materials and exposure times on cytotoxicity of fibroblasts was statistically analyzed using two way ANOVA (P=0.05). Results: Both time and material had an impact on cell viability, with giomer demonstrating the maximum cell viability at all time periods. The cell viability in the giomer group was significantly different from all other materials at 24 and 72 hours (P&lt;0.05), while at 48 hours giomer was significantly different only with resin composite (P&lt;0.05). Conclusions: Giomers showed better biocompatibility than conventional and ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cements and, resin composite. Ceramic reinforced glass ionomer demonstrated superior biocompatibility compared to conventional glass ionomer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document