ACTA FAC
MED NAISS 2011;28(2):109-118|
ACTA FAC
MED NAISS 2011;28(2):109-118 |
Original article
UDC:616.314-001.4:615.242
Marginal GAP and Alteration of Enamel Around Adhesive Restorations of Teeth (in vitro SEM investigation)
Stefan Dačić1, Dragica Simonović Dačić1,2, Goran Radičević1,2, Aleksandar Mitić1,2, Goran Tošić1,2, Ivan Ristić1, Stefan Veličković1
1Clinic of Dentistry, Niš, Serbia
2University of Niš, Faculty of
Medicine, Serbia
SUMMARY
There are three adhesive restorative systems: etch and rinse (total etch), self
etch and glass ionomer systems. Marginal gap and alteration of marginal enamel
around composite and glass ionomer restoration may be influenced by the use of
adhesive restorative procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the
marginal integrity and morphology of the enamel surface around margins of
composite and glass ionomer restorations, after storage in cariogenic-acid
solution. Seventy class V cavities were prepared with margins at enamel.
Cavities were restored with: (I) 1. Single Bond + Z 250 and 2. Single Bond +
Filek flow, using etch and rinse adhesive system; (II) 3. Prompt-L-Pop + Z 250
and 4. Prompt-L-Pop + Filtek flow, using self etch adhesive system; (III) 5.
Vitremer, glass ionomer system. After the restorative procedure, the teeth with
restorations were subjected to demineralization for 7 and 28 days. Samples were
stored in a demineralizing solution (lactic acid, pH 4.5, 0,1M) at 370C or in
deionized water (control group). The margins of restorations (width of the gap)
and perimarginal enamel were examined by scanning electron microscope (SEM). The
data were analyzed using the ANOVA-Dunnet test. Hybrid composite resin with etch
and rinse adhesive system (Single Bond/ Z 250) showed the best adaptation to
enamel margins. Glass ionomer restorations showed significantly bigger gap
formation compared to etch and rinse and self etch systems (p<0,01). The SEM
examination showed demineralized perimarginal enamel zone around all types of
restorations as well. These zones were characterized by severe signs of erosion,
alteration of rods, porosities. Slight alterations were found on the enamel
surfaces not included in the perimarginal zone. Marginal adaptation of
restorations to enamel was more effective with etch and rinse adhesive system
than self etch and glass ionomer approaches. Stronger demineralization of the
perimarginal enamel was observed around composite restorations.
Key words: marginal gap, demineralization, enamel, adhesive restorations