IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Adhesives on Caries Lesion Progress Around Composite Restorations
Objectives: To evaluate the influence of bonding agents with or without fluoride release on the progress of enamel and dentin secondary caries-like lesions around composite restorations using optical coherence tomography (OCT).
Methods: Cylindrical cervical preparations (diameter: 4mm; depth: 2mm) on bovine teeth were treated by two fluoride-releasing adhesives; Clearfil SE Protect (SP, Kuraray Noritake Dental) and Bond Force (BF, Tokuyama Dental), two non-fluoride-releasing adhesives; Scotchbond Universal (SB, 3M ESPE) and G-Bond Plus (GB, GC), or left untreated Control group (n=10). A flowable composite (Estelite Flow Quick, Tokuyama Dental) was used to restore the cavities. Specimens were subjected to 3d artificial saliva incubation and 10,000 thermal cycles followed by demineralization challenge using acidic gel (pH=4.5) for 5wks. After each week, a 3D scan was obtained by swept-source OCT (Santec) at 1310nm center wavelength. Size of the cavitated lesion formed due to tissue loss at enamel and dentin margins was measured on 4 fixed OCT cross-sections at each time (Figure). Lesion size was analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc (alpha=0.05).
Results: OCT image analysis enabled accurate measurement of the cavitated lesion size. At 5 weeks, mean size of lesions on the cross-sections ranged 0.042 to 0.080mm2 for enamel and 0.068 to 0.128mm2 for dentin margins. Adhesive type, time and their interaction had a significant influence on lesion size for both enamel and dentin (p<0.001). In enamel, lesion progress over time was slower in SP and BF, and significantly different from SB, GB and Control (p<0.001). In dentin, lesions formed around margins of SP and BF were smaller and significantly different from GB and Control (p<0.001), but not from SB. There was no significant difference between GB and Control (p>0.05).
Conclusions: In addition to a tight seal, fluoride-release from adhesives influences lesion formation and progress around composite-restoration, especially in enamel.
Methods: Cylindrical cervical preparations (diameter: 4mm; depth: 2mm) on bovine teeth were treated by two fluoride-releasing adhesives; Clearfil SE Protect (SP, Kuraray Noritake Dental) and Bond Force (BF, Tokuyama Dental), two non-fluoride-releasing adhesives; Scotchbond Universal (SB, 3M ESPE) and G-Bond Plus (GB, GC), or left untreated Control group (n=10). A flowable composite (Estelite Flow Quick, Tokuyama Dental) was used to restore the cavities. Specimens were subjected to 3d artificial saliva incubation and 10,000 thermal cycles followed by demineralization challenge using acidic gel (pH=4.5) for 5wks. After each week, a 3D scan was obtained by swept-source OCT (Santec) at 1310nm center wavelength. Size of the cavitated lesion formed due to tissue loss at enamel and dentin margins was measured on 4 fixed OCT cross-sections at each time (Figure). Lesion size was analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc (alpha=0.05).
Results: OCT image analysis enabled accurate measurement of the cavitated lesion size. At 5 weeks, mean size of lesions on the cross-sections ranged 0.042 to 0.080mm2 for enamel and 0.068 to 0.128mm2 for dentin margins. Adhesive type, time and their interaction had a significant influence on lesion size for both enamel and dentin (p<0.001). In enamel, lesion progress over time was slower in SP and BF, and significantly different from SB, GB and Control (p<0.001). In dentin, lesions formed around margins of SP and BF were smaller and significantly different from GB and Control (p<0.001), but not from SB. There was no significant difference between GB and Control (p>0.05).
Conclusions: In addition to a tight seal, fluoride-release from adhesives influences lesion formation and progress around composite-restoration, especially in enamel.
2102393_File000000.jpg