Periodontopathic bacterial adhesion to different restorative materials used to elevate proximal subgingival margins.

This study compared the periodontopathic bacterial adhesion to four restorative materials used for deep margin elevation at 2, 24, and 48-h after incubation. Discs were produced from four restorative materials: resin modified glass ionomer, glass hybrid, flowable bulk fill resin composite, and bioactive ionic resin. Root dentin was used as control. Specimens were coated with saliva and used to culture a biofilm comprised of three strains of periodontopathic bacteria; Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans. Bacterial adherence was assessed by colony count assay, crystal violet staining, and visualized using confocal laser scanning microscopy. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc tests. The adhesion values for the control specimens were significantly higher than for other materials, while those for the flowable bulk fill were significantly lower than for any other material within all evaluation assays. The 2-h incubation period showed the lowest adhesion values regardless of the group. The 48-h adhesion values were higher than the 24-h results in all groups except the flowable bulk fill. Microscopic imaging partially supported the findings of the measurements. In terms of periodontopathic bacterial adhesion, the tested flowable bulk fill may be preferable for subgingival use over other tested materials.

In vitro marginal and internal adaptation of four different base materials used to elevate proximal dentin gingival margins.

Background: There is still debate about the most appropriate restorative material category to relocate the proximal deep cervical margins, thus, this study aimed to compare the marginal and internal adaptation of four base materials used for deep margin elevation, and to evaluate each base material/overlying composite interface. Material and Methods: Fifty six molars received class II cavities with dentin/cementum gingival margins. They were divided into four groups and their gingival margins were elevated using either; resin modified glass ionomer (RMGI), highly viscous conventional glass ionomer (HV-GIC), flowable bulk fill resin composite (Bulk Flow) and bioactive ionic resin (Activa). The rest of the cavities were completed with the same overlying composite. Half of each group was either; kept in sterile water for 1 week, or subjected to 18 months water storage and 15,000 thermal cycles. Base materials/gingival dentin interfaces were examined under a scanning electron microscope at different magnifications, and percentage of continuous margin (% CM) and maximum gap width (MGW) were analyzed, in addition to base materials/overlying composite interfaces evaluations. % CM values were statistically analyzed using Two-way analysis of variance, Tukey post hoc tests (at p<0.05) and Pearson's correlation while MGW values were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearmen correlation. Results: Both Bulk Flow and Activa had better marginal integrity than RMGI and HV-GIC. All base materials were adversely affected by aging. All base materials/overlying composite interfaces were continuous and age defying. Conclusions: In terms of marginal integrity, Bulk Flow and Activa might be preferable for proximal dentin margin elevation under direct restoration compared to the other tested base materials. Key words:Deep proximal margin, interface analysis, marginal quality, open sandwich technique.

Correlation between different methodologies used to evaluate the marginal adaptation of proximal dentin gingival margins elevated using a glass hybrid.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of aging on the marginal quality of glass hybrid (GH) material used to elevate dentin gingival margins, and to analyze the consistency of the results obtained by 3 in vitro methods. Materials and Methods: Ten teeth received compound class II cavities with subgingival margins. The dentin gingival margins were elevated with GH, followed by resin composite. The GH/gingival dentin interfaces were examined through digital microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) using resin replicas, and according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. After initial evaluations, all teeth were subjected to 10,000 thermal cycles, followed by repeating the same marginal evaluations and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) analysis for the interfacial zone of 2 specimens. Marginal quality was expressed as the percentage of continuous margin at ×200 for microscopic techniques and as the frequency of each score for FDI ranking. Data were analyzed using the paired sample t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Pearson and Spearmen correlation coefficients. Results: None of the testing techniques proved the significance of the aging factor. Moderate and strong significant correlations were found between the testing techniques. The EDS results suggested the presence of an ion-exchange layer along the GH/gingival dentin interface of aged specimens. Conclusions: The marginal quality of the GH/dentin gingival interface defied aging by thermocycling. The replica SEM and FDI ranking results had stronger correlations with each other than either showed with the digital microscopy results.

Deep proximal margin rebuilding with direct esthetic restorations: a systematic review of marginal adaptation and bond strength.

This review aimed to characterize the effect of direct restorative material types and adhesive protocols on marginal adaptation and the bond strength of the interface between the material and the proximal dentin/cementum. An electronic search of 3 databases (the National Library of Medicine [MEDLINE/PubMed], Scopus, and ScienceDirect) was conducted. Studies were included if they evaluated marginal adaptation or bond strength tests for proximal restorations under the cementoenamel junction. Only 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. These studies presented a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of the materials used and the methodologies and evaluation criteria of each test; therefore, only a descriptive analysis could be conducted. The included studies were individually evaluated for the risk of bias following predetermined criteria. To summarize the results of the included studies, the type of restorative material affected the test results, whereas the use of different adhesive protocols had an insignificant effect on the results. It could be concluded that various categories of resin-based composites could be a suitable choice for clinicians to elevate proximal dentin/cementum margins, rather than the open sandwich technique with resin-modified glass ionomers. Despite challenges in bonding to proximal dentin/cementum margins, different adhesive protocols provided comparable outcomes.