Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.
J Appl Oral Sci. 2010 Sep-Oct;18(5):453-60. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572010000500005.
Secondary caries is still the main cause of restoration replacement, especially on the root surface.
This in vitro study evaluated the cariostatic effects of fluoride-containing restorative materials associated with fluoride gels, on root dentin.
A randomized complete block design was used to test the effects of the restorative systems, fluoride regimes and the interactions among them at different distances from restoration margins. Standardized cavities were prepared on 240 bovine root specimens and randomly assigned to 15 groups of treatments (n=16). Cavities were filled with the following restorative materials: Ketac-Fil (3M-ESPE); Vitremer (3M-ESPE); Dyract/Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply); Charisma/Gluma One Bond (Heraeus Kulzer) and the control, Z250/Single Bond (3M-ESPE). The specimens were subjected to a pH-cycling model designed to simulate high-caries activity. During the cycles, 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride, 2.0% neutral sodium fluoride or deionized/distilled water (control) was applied to the specimens for 4 min. The surface Knoop microhardness test was performed before (KHNi) and after (KHNf) the pH cycles at 100, 200 and 300 mm from the margins. Dentin microhardness loss was represented by the difference in initial and final values (KHNi - KHNf). Data were analyzed by Friedman's and Wilcoxon's tests, ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=5%).
The interaction of restorative systems and topical treatments was not significant (p=0.102). Dentin microhardness loss was lowest closer to the restoration. Ketac-fil presented the highest cariostatic effect. Vitremer presented a moderate effect, while Dyract and Charisma did not differ from the control, Z250. The effects of neutral and acidulated fluoride gels were similar to each other and higher than the control.
Conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements as well as neutral and acidulated fluoride gels inhibit the progression of artificial caries adjacent to restorations. The associated effect of fluoride-containing restorative materials and gels could not be demonstrated.
继发龋仍然是修复体替换的主要原因，尤其是在牙根表面。
本体外研究评估了含氟修复材料与氟化物凝胶联合用于牙本质的防龋效果。
采用随机完整块设计，测试修复系统、氟化物处理方案及其相互作用在距修复边缘不同距离的效果。在 240 个牛牙根标本上制备标准化窝洞，随机分配至 15 组处理（n=16）。窝洞用以下修复材料填充：Ketac-Fil（3M-ESPE）；Vitremer（3M-ESPE）；Dyract/Prime & Bond NT（登士柏）；Charisma/Gluma One Bond（贺利氏古莎）和对照组 Z250/Single Bond（3M-ESPE）。标本用设计模拟高龋活性的 pH 循环模型处理。在循环过程中，用 1.23%酸性磷酸氟化物、2.0%中性氟化钠或去离子/蒸馏水（对照）处理标本 4 分钟。在距边缘 100、200 和 300mm 处进行表面 Knoop 显微硬度测试，在 pH 循环前后（KHNi 和 KHNf）进行。用初始值与最终值的差值（KHNi-KHNf）表示牙本质显微硬度损失。采用 Friedman 和 Wilcoxon 检验、方差分析和 Tukey 检验（α=5%）进行数据分析。
修复系统和局部处理的相互作用无统计学意义（p=0.102）。距修复体越近，牙本质显微硬度损失越低。Ketac-fil 具有最高的防龋效果。Vitremer 表现出中等效果，而 Dyract 和 Charisma 与对照组 Z250 无差异。中性和酸性氟化物凝胶的效果彼此相似，且高于对照组。
传统和树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀以及中性和酸性氟化物凝胶可抑制修复体周围人工龋的进展。含氟修复材料和凝胶的联合作用效果无法证实。
