Do Dental Materials Influence Secondary Caries Development?

Methods: An 8-week in situ study with split-mouth design was performed to assess caries lesion development next to restorations. Nine edentulous patients volunteered and a copy of their lower denture was made to insert samples. Six groups (n=18) of restored dentine samples were inserted using: Amalgam; FiltekSilorane/SSA; FiltekSupreme/SEBond; Clearfil AP-X/SEbond; Clearfil AP-X/SEProtect and AP-X/SEProtect 6layers. Unrestored dentin was used as control. Volunteers immersed the trial prosthesis in a 20% sucrose solution 4 times/day, and once a day, a fluoride toothpaste slurry was applied. At baseline, 4 and 8 weeks, samples were radiographed extra-orally using transversal wavelength independent microradiography (T-WIM). T-WIM microradiographs at 8 weeks were analyzed for mineral loss, and data were analyzed statistically using regression analysis (p=0.05), taking clustering of samples within subjects into account.  

Results: The results of the analysis for mineral loss are shown in the table below. In the table, amalgam is the reference material in the analysis, and all effect estimates are relative to amalgam.

Conclusions: There was a trend for all composite materials to show less caries progression than amalgam, and for 3 materials this difference was significant.