Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical performance of a glass hybrid (GH) restorative and a nano-ceramic composite resin (CR) in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of bruxist individuals in a 60-month randomized clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-five bruxist candidates having NCCLs were recruited in this clinical study. The depth, height (cervico-incisal), width (mesio-distal), internal angles of the NCCLs, degree of tooth wear (TWI) and gingival index (GI) were measured. One hundred-and-forty-eight NCCLs were restored either with a GH restorative (Equia Forte Fil) or a CR (Ceram.X One Universal). Modified USPHS criteria was used to evaluate restorations after 1 week and 12, 24, 36 and 60 months. Pearson's Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact and Cochran Q tests were run for analysis. Survival rates of the restorations were compared with Kaplan-Meier analysis (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

After 60 months, 97 restorations in 15 patients were examined. The recall rate was 60.0%. Retention rates were 73.5% for CR and 66.7% for GH. A total of 29 restorations were lost (13CR (26.5%), 16GH (33.3%)). There was not a significant difference between tested restoratives in retention (p = 0.464), marginal adaptation (p = 0.856) and marginal discoloration (p = 0.273). There was no relationship between internal angle, depth, height or width and retention of the GH or CR restorations (p > 0.05). The increase in retention loss and marginal discoloration of both restorations over time were significant (p < 0.001). Sensitivity or secondary caries were not detected after 60 months.

CONCLUSION

GH and nano-ceramic CR showed similar clinical performances in NCCLs after 60 months in patients with bruxism.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

After 60 months, CR and GH materials showed clinically acceptable performances in restoration of NCCLs in patients with bruxism.

The burden of root caries: Updated perspectives and advances on management strategies

BACKGROUND

Root caries has gained much attention in the last few years. As the world's population is ageing and people currently tend to retain more teeth compared with older generations, there is an increased prevalence of periodontal disease and gingival recession, which may accelerate the onset of root caries.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to summarise recent findings related to the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of root caries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE (OVID) and Scopus (Elsevier) searches were performed to identify and discuss articles that address the pathogenicity and clinical management of root caries.

RESULTS

Root caries is a multifactorial disease. Cariogenic species involved in root caries are less dependent on carbohydrates since collagen degradation inside the dentinal tubules can provide nutrients and microcavities for the invading microorganisms. Furthermore, the root surface has fewer minerals in comparison with enamel, which may accelerate the onset of demineralisation. Root caries could be prevented by patient education, modification of risk factors, and the use of in-office and home remineralisation tools. The use of non-invasive approaches to control root caries is recommended, as the survival rate of root caries restorations is poor. When plaque control is impossible and a deep/large cavity is present, glass ionomer or resin-based restorations can be placed.

CONCLUSION

The assessment of root carious lesions is critical to determine the lesion activity and the required intervention. Dental practitioners should also be aware of different prevention and treatment approaches to design optimum oral health care for root caries-affected patients.

Clinical comparison of a micro-hybride resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions: 36-month, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to compare the 36-month clinical performances of a micro-hybride resin based composites (RBC) and a type II resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in the treatment of cervical caries lesions.

METHODS

Thirty-three patients (23 females,  10 males) with at least two cervical caries lesions participated in this study. A total of 110 restorations were randomly placed, half using RBC (Spectrum TPH3, Dentsply Sirona) with respective adhesive system (Prime & Bond NT, Dentsply Sirona) the other half using the RMGIC (Riva Light Cure, SDI, Bayswater, Victoria, Australia). Restorations were assessed at baseline, and after 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months using modified USPHS criteria. The data were analyzed statistically (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Recall rate was 90.91% at 36 months. Of the RBC lesions 84.3% (n = 43) and of the RMGIC restorations 92.2% (n = 47) were fully retained at 36 months. There was no significant difference between two materials in terms of retention and marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). No relation was found between caries activity, cavity dimensions and marginal adaptation (p > 0.05) but RMGIC restorations showed significantly more discoloration than RBC restorations after 36 months (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the middle-term outcomes, both materials showed clinically successful performance in the treatment of cervical caries lesions.

The effect of restorative materials on cytokines in gingival crevicular fluid

OBJECTIVE

Composition of the restorative materials may cause inflammatory responses by monocyte activation and changes in the levels of cytokine released from different cells. Interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8) and Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) are important cytokine for evaluating of the inflammatory process. The aim of this study was to evaluate the different restorative materials used in class V cavities effect on gingival crevicular fluid inflammatory cytokine levels.

DESIGN

60 individuals having Class V carious cavities participated in the study. Cavities were restored with FiltekZ250, DyractXP, Fuji IX, Cavex avalloy restorative materials. Changes in clinical and biochemical parameters were evaluated before restorations, seven and 21days after restorations. Contralateral tooth intact enamel surface was determined as control side. Periotron8000 device was used for detection of GCF volume. Cytokine level of GCF was evaluated by Human ELISA kits. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon signed ranks test. The correlations between clinical parameters and biochemical parameters were examined by Spearman's rank correlation analysis.

RESULTS

After restorative treatments PI and GI scores were decreased compared with baseline evaluations. There was a significant difference in GCF levels between experimental and control sites in all groups. GCF IL-6 levels in all groups except Filtek Z250, GCF IL-8 levels in all groups except Fuji IX, GCF TNF-α level in only Fuji IX showed significant differences between experimental and control sites.

CONCLUSIONS

The obtained data supported that all of the tested materials caused changes in GCF cytokine levels.