Influence of fluoride-releasing restorative material on root dentine secondary caries in situ

Anderson Hara, C. P. Turssi, Masatoshi Ando, C. González-Cabezas, Domenick Zero, A. L. Rodrigues, M. C. Serra, J. A. Cury

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The usefulness of fluoride-releasing restorations in secondary caries prevention may be questioned because of the presence of other common sources of fluoride and because of ageing of the restorations. This study tested the hypothesis that glass-ionomer cement restorations, either aged or unaged, do not prevent secondary root caries, when fluoride dentifrice is frequently used. Sixteen volunteers wore palatal appliances in two phases of 14 days, according to a 2 × 2 crossover design. In each phase the appliance was loaded with bovine root dentine slabs restored with either glass-ionomer or resin composite, either aged or unaged. Specimens were exposed to cariogenic challenge 4 times/day and to fluoridated dentifrice 3 times/day. The fluoride content in the biofilm (FB) formed on slabs and the mineral loss (ΔZ) around the restorations were analysed. No differences were found between restorative materials regarding the FB and the ΔZ, for either aged (p = 0.792 and p = 0.645, respectively) or unaged (p = 1.00 and p = 0.278, respectively) groups. Under the cariogenic and fluoride dentifrice exposure conditions of this study, the glass-ionomer restoration, either aged or unaged, did not provide additional protection against secondary root caries.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)435-439
Number of pages5
JournalCaries Research
Volume40
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2006

Fingerprint

Secondary Dentin
Fluorides
Dentifrices
Root Caries
Glass Ionomer Cements
Composite Resins
Dentin
Biofilms
Secondary Prevention
Cross-Over Studies
Minerals
Volunteers

Keywords

  • Glass-ionomer cement
  • Root caries
  • Secondary caries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Influence of fluoride-releasing restorative material on root dentine secondary caries in situ. / Hara, Anderson; Turssi, C. P.; Ando, Masatoshi; González-Cabezas, C.; Zero, Domenick; Rodrigues, A. L.; Serra, M. C.; Cury, J. A.

In: Caries Research, Vol. 40, No. 5, 08.2006, p. 435-439.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hara, A, Turssi, CP, Ando, M, González-Cabezas, C, Zero, D, Rodrigues, AL, Serra, MC & Cury, JA 2006, 'Influence of fluoride-releasing restorative material on root dentine secondary caries in situ', Caries Research, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 435-439. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094290
Hara, Anderson ; Turssi, C. P. ; Ando, Masatoshi ; González-Cabezas, C. ; Zero, Domenick ; Rodrigues, A. L. ; Serra, M. C. ; Cury, J. A. / Influence of fluoride-releasing restorative material on root dentine secondary caries in situ. In: Caries Research. 2006 ; Vol. 40, No. 5. pp. 435-439.
@article{531ccfc70c7d443bb4fb730fe5797e47,
title = "Influence of fluoride-releasing restorative material on root dentine secondary caries in situ",
abstract = "The usefulness of fluoride-releasing restorations in secondary caries prevention may be questioned because of the presence of other common sources of fluoride and because of ageing of the restorations. This study tested the hypothesis that glass-ionomer cement restorations, either aged or unaged, do not prevent secondary root caries, when fluoride dentifrice is frequently used. Sixteen volunteers wore palatal appliances in two phases of 14 days, according to a 2 × 2 crossover design. In each phase the appliance was loaded with bovine root dentine slabs restored with either glass-ionomer or resin composite, either aged or unaged. Specimens were exposed to cariogenic challenge 4 times/day and to fluoridated dentifrice 3 times/day. The fluoride content in the biofilm (FB) formed on slabs and the mineral loss (ΔZ) around the restorations were analysed. No differences were found between restorative materials regarding the FB and the ΔZ, for either aged (p = 0.792 and p = 0.645, respectively) or unaged (p = 1.00 and p = 0.278, respectively) groups. Under the cariogenic and fluoride dentifrice exposure conditions of this study, the glass-ionomer restoration, either aged or unaged, did not provide additional protection against secondary root caries.",
keywords = "Glass-ionomer cement, Root caries, Secondary caries",
author = "Anderson Hara and Turssi, {C. P.} and Masatoshi Ando and C. Gonz{\'a}lez-Cabezas and Domenick Zero and Rodrigues, {A. L.} and Serra, {M. C.} and Cury, {J. A.}",
year = "2006",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1159/000094290",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "435--439",
journal = "Caries Research",
issn = "0008-6568",
publisher = "S. Karger AG",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of fluoride-releasing restorative material on root dentine secondary caries in situ

AU - Hara, Anderson

AU - Turssi, C. P.

AU - Ando, Masatoshi

AU - González-Cabezas, C.

AU - Zero, Domenick

AU - Rodrigues, A. L.

AU - Serra, M. C.

AU - Cury, J. A.

PY - 2006/8

Y1 - 2006/8

N2 - The usefulness of fluoride-releasing restorations in secondary caries prevention may be questioned because of the presence of other common sources of fluoride and because of ageing of the restorations. This study tested the hypothesis that glass-ionomer cement restorations, either aged or unaged, do not prevent secondary root caries, when fluoride dentifrice is frequently used. Sixteen volunteers wore palatal appliances in two phases of 14 days, according to a 2 × 2 crossover design. In each phase the appliance was loaded with bovine root dentine slabs restored with either glass-ionomer or resin composite, either aged or unaged. Specimens were exposed to cariogenic challenge 4 times/day and to fluoridated dentifrice 3 times/day. The fluoride content in the biofilm (FB) formed on slabs and the mineral loss (ΔZ) around the restorations were analysed. No differences were found between restorative materials regarding the FB and the ΔZ, for either aged (p = 0.792 and p = 0.645, respectively) or unaged (p = 1.00 and p = 0.278, respectively) groups. Under the cariogenic and fluoride dentifrice exposure conditions of this study, the glass-ionomer restoration, either aged or unaged, did not provide additional protection against secondary root caries.

AB - The usefulness of fluoride-releasing restorations in secondary caries prevention may be questioned because of the presence of other common sources of fluoride and because of ageing of the restorations. This study tested the hypothesis that glass-ionomer cement restorations, either aged or unaged, do not prevent secondary root caries, when fluoride dentifrice is frequently used. Sixteen volunteers wore palatal appliances in two phases of 14 days, according to a 2 × 2 crossover design. In each phase the appliance was loaded with bovine root dentine slabs restored with either glass-ionomer or resin composite, either aged or unaged. Specimens were exposed to cariogenic challenge 4 times/day and to fluoridated dentifrice 3 times/day. The fluoride content in the biofilm (FB) formed on slabs and the mineral loss (ΔZ) around the restorations were analysed. No differences were found between restorative materials regarding the FB and the ΔZ, for either aged (p = 0.792 and p = 0.645, respectively) or unaged (p = 1.00 and p = 0.278, respectively) groups. Under the cariogenic and fluoride dentifrice exposure conditions of this study, the glass-ionomer restoration, either aged or unaged, did not provide additional protection against secondary root caries.

KW - Glass-ionomer cement

KW - Root caries

KW - Secondary caries

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748304231&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748304231&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1159/000094290

DO - 10.1159/000094290

M3 - Article

C2 - 16946613

AN - SCOPUS:33748304231

VL - 40

SP - 435

EP - 439

JO - Caries Research

JF - Caries Research

SN - 0008-6568

IS - 5

ER -