Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

Publication:
May 2007
Volume 38 , Issue 5

Back
Share Abstract:

Effect of different restorative materials on caries: A retrospective in vivo study

Daniel Ziskind, DMD / Eliyahu Mass, DMD / Timothy F. Watson, BSc, BDS, PhD, FDS

Pages: 429434
PMID: 17568843

Objective: To compare, retrospectively, the influence of different types of restorative materials on caries in vivo. Method and Materials: Twenty-three primary teeth restored by a single operator with amalgam and 2 polyacid-modified resin composites, and with a band of tooth structure beyond the floor of the cervical box, were selected for microscopic evaluation. The teeth were sectioned mesiodistally with the aid of a hard tissue microtome, polished, and cleaned. A confocal laser scanning microscope was used to measure caries-related autofluorescence in the tooth tissue adjacent to the restorative material. A band of about 400 m along the interface between the restoration and the tooth structure was observed. The extent of the fluorescent regions was recorded in relation to the total interface length. The specimens were then categorized according to the restorative material used: group A: amalgam (Spherodon, Silmet, n = 11); group D: polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract, Dentsply DeTrey, n = 6); and group C: polyacid-modified composite (Compoglass, Ivoclar Vivadent, n = 6. The data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model (a = .05) and Pearson correlation coefficient. Results: No significant differences were found between the materials (P > .05). Conclusion: Within the limits of this clinical study, the data obtained using a small sample size suggests that the effect of the restorative material in primary molars does not have a predominant influence on secondary or residual caries. (Quintessence Int 2007;38:429434)

Key words: amalgam, caries, confocal laser scanning microscope, in vivo, polyacid-modified resin composite, residual caries, restorative materials, secondary caries

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog