The Influence of Cement Removal Techniques on In Situ Bacterial Adhesion and Biodegradation at the Marginal Interface of Ceramic Laminates.

OBJECTIVES: This in situ study aimed to analyze the influence of different resin cement removal techniques on bacterial adhesion and biodegradation at the marginal interface of ceramic laminates. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty feldspathic ceramic (F) blocks were prepared and cemented onto bovine enamel slabs (7×2.5×2 mm). Excess cement was removed using a microbrush (MBR), a scalpel blade (SCP), or a Teflon spatula (TSP). For the biodegradation analysis, 40 disc-shaped resin cement specimens were prepared (7×1.5 mm) using a Teflon mold. The specimens were randomly allocated into two groups: (1) No finishing procedure (only Mylar strip), and (2) with finishing and polishing procedures using the Jiffy system (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA) (n=20). The in situ phase consisted of using an intraoral palatal device by 20 volunteers for 7 days. Each device contained five cylindrical wells (8×3 mm), where three dental blocks and two cement specimens were included in the wells. Surface roughness (Ra) was measured using a contact profilometer. A micromorphological analysis was performed under a stereomicroscope and a scanning electron microscope. Bacterial adhesion was quantitated based on the number of colony-forming units (CFU/mL) and their biofilm development potential. RESULTS: The cement removal techniques directly affected surface roughness at the marginal interface (p<0.001), and the SCP technique produced higher mean roughness, regardless of the surface area analyzed. Surface polishing protected cement specimens from further biodegradation (p=0.148). There were no differences in CFU counts between the groups after the in situ phase (p=0.96). All specimens showed CFU with a strong ability to develop a biofilm. CONCLUSIONS: The techniques used for cement removal increased the surface roughness of ceramic laminates, particularly SCP, but they did not affect bacterial adhesion at the marginal interface. Surface polishing of the resin cement is recommended to mitigate biodegradation.

Hydrolytic and Biological Degradation of Bulk-fill and Self-adhering Resin Composites.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the hydrolytic degradation (in vitro) and biodegradation (in situ) of different resin composites: bulk-fill (XTra Fill, XTF/VOCO; Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fil, TBF/ Ivoclar Vivadent), self-adhering (Vertise Flow, VTF/ Kerr; Fusio Liquid Dentin, FUS/ Pentron Clinical), and a conventional resin composite (Filtek Z250, Z250/ 3M ESPE), which was used as a control. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventy-five cylindrical specimens (7 × 1 mm) were desiccated and immersed into distilled water (DW), artificial saliva (AS), and 0.1 M lactic acid (LA) (n=5) for 180 days. Specimens were weighed after 180 days, after which they were desiccated again. The sorption (µg/mm3) and solubility (µg/mm3) were calculated based on ISO 4049. For the in situ phase, an intraoral palatal device containing five cylindrical specimens (5 × 1.5 mm) was used by 20 volunteers for seven days. Surface roughness was evaluated before and after this period to analyze the superficial biodegradation. Sorption and solubility data were submitted to Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare roughness at different observation times. The statistical significance for all tests was considered α=0.05. RESULTS: For in vitro, self-adhering resin composites (VTF and FUS) showed, respectively, higher sorption values independent of the solution (62.55 and 50.81 µg/mm3 in DW, 67.26 and 50.46 µg/mm3 in AS, and 64.98 and 59.86 µg/mm3 in LA). Self-adhering VTF also had a greater solubility value in DW (22.18 µg/mm3) and FUS in LA (65.87 µg/mm3). In AS, the bulk-fill resin composite XTF showed higher solubility (22.13 µg/mm3). All resins were biodegraded, but the XTF specimens were more resistant (p=0.278) to chemical attack. CONCLUSIONS: The self-adhering resin composites showed the highest hydrolytic degradation, and the bulk-fill resin composites exhibited comparable or superior results to the conventional resin composites. Not all resin composites underwent biodegradation in the in situ environment. The storage environment influenced the final characteristics of each material tested.