Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2017 Jan-Mar;35(1):75-82. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.199235.

Comparative evaluation of secondary caries formation around light-cured fluoride-releasing restorative materials.

Author information

  • 1Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India.
  • 2Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, College of Dental Sciences, Davangere, Karnataka, India.
  • 3Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, School of Dental Sciences, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Karad, Maharashtra, India.

Abstract

AIM:

The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate secondary caries formation around light-cured fluoride-releasing restorative materials.

METHODOLOGY:

Standard Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of forty extracted healthy premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups of ten teeth each and labeled as Group I, II, III, and IV and restored with one of the following materials, namely, Fuji II LC (Group I), Vitremer (Group II), F-2000 (Group III), and Z-100 (Group IV; Control). The teeth were thermocycled and immersed in jars containing an acid gel for caries-like lesion formation. After 15 weeks, the samples were removed, washed, and sectioned buccolingually through the restoration. The sections were then grounded to a thickness of 80-100 ┬Ám. After imbibition in water, the sections were mounted on slides and lesions were examined, measured, and photographed with Leica DMRB Research Microscope. The observation recorded was subjected to (a) analysis of variance, (b) Studentized range test (Newman-Keuls), (c) Snedecor's F-test.

RESULTS:

The depth of the outer lesion in teeth restored with Z-100 (Group IV; Control) was significantly higher than the teeth restored with F-2000 (Group III), Vitremer (Group II), and Fuji II LC (Group I) (P < 0.01). The depth of the outer lesion in teeth restored with F-2000 (Group III) was also significantly higher than the teeth restored with Vitremer (Group II) and Fuji II LC (Group I) (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in depth of the outer lesions among the teeth restored with Vitremer (Group II) and Fuji II LC (Group I). No wall lesion (WL) was evident in teeth restored with Vitremer (Group II) and Fuji II LC (Group I). The WL length and body depth in teeth restored with Z-100 (Group IV; Control) were significantly higher than the teeth restored with F-2000 (Group III) (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION:

It was concluded that Fuji II LC and Vitremer had a inhibitory effect on the development of WL and OL depth. Even though F- 2000 was not fully effective in preventing the development of WL, there was significant reduction in WL and depth when compared to Z-100.

PMID:
28139487
DOI:
10.4103/0970-4388.199235
[PubMed - in process]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Medknow Publications and Media Pvt Ltd
    Loading ...
    Support Center