Mineral loss on adjacent enamel glass ionomer cements restorations after cariogenic and erosive challenges

Abstract Objectives the purpose of this study was to determine the mineral loss on surrounding enamel restored with glass ionomer cements (GIC) after erosive and cariogenic challenges. Methods Bovine enamel specimens were randomly assigned into six groups according to the restorative material: G1 –...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Archives of oral biology 2011-10, Vol.56 (10), p.1014-1019
Main Authors: Salas, C.F.C, Guglielmi, C.A.B, Raggio, D.P, Mendes, F.M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Advanced Basic Science
Animals
Cariogenic Agents - adverse effects
Cattle
Citric Acid - adverse effects
Composite Resins - chemistry
Dental caries
Dental Enamel - pathology
Dental erosion
Dental Materials - chemistry
Dental Polishing - methods
Dental Restoration, Permanent - methods
Dentistry
Glass ionomer cement
Glass Ionomer Cements - chemistry
Hardness
Hydrogen-Ion Concentration
Minerals - analysis
Nanoparticles - chemistry
Protective Agents - chemistry
Random Allocation
Resin Cements - chemistry
Tooth Demineralization - etiology
Tooth Erosion - complications
Tooth Remineralization - methods
Viscosity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Objectives the purpose of this study was to determine the mineral loss on surrounding enamel restored with glass ionomer cements (GIC) after erosive and cariogenic challenges. Methods Bovine enamel specimens were randomly assigned into six groups according to the restorative material: G1 – composite resin; G2 – high viscous GIC; G3 – resin-modified glass ionomer with nanoparticles; G4 – encapsulated resin-modified GIC; G5 – encapsulated high viscous GIC; G6 – resin-modified GIC. After restorative procedures, half of specimens in each group were submitted to caries challenge using a pH cycling model for 5 days, and the other half were submitted to erosive challenge in citric acid for 10 min. Before and after the challenges, surface Knoop microhardness assessments were performed and mineral changes were calculated for adjacent enamel at different distances from restorative margin. Results Data were compared for significant differences using two-way ANOVA and Student–Newman–Keuls tests ( p < 0.05). Erosive challenge significantly reduced enamel surface hardness, but no significant difference was observed irrespectively restorative materials ( p > 0.05). The cariogenic challenge promoted a higher surface hardness loss for the resin-modified GIC (G4) and only for the High viscous GIC (G2) an increase in surface hardness was observed. For enamel analyses, significant differences were observed with respect to the different materials ( p < 0.001) and distances ( p = 0.023). Specimens restored with the composite resin presented higher mineral loss and specimens restored with the conventional high viscous GIC and the encapsulated resin-modified GIC presented the lowest values for mineral loss. Conclusion The GICs exerts protective effect only for cariogenic challenge.
ISSN:0003-9969
1879-1506
DOI:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2011.03.005