Sajini Shara I, Alshawi Bashayr A, Alharbi Lamia M
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, KSA.
Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, KSA.
J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2022 Feb 1;17(4):640-647. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.12.004. eCollection 2022 Aug.
Minimally invasive dentistry encourages conservative caries excavation and remineralisation of the remaining dental tissues. However, dentine remineralisation is more difficult than enamel remineralisation due to the differences in their composition. This study aims to assess the remineralisation potential of Activa BioActive-Restorative and Beautifil II restoration on demineralised dentine samples, and compares it with glass-ionomer (GIC) restoration using energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) and Knoop hardness number (KHN).
Non-carious extracted molar teeth were used, a total number of ten teeth were sectioned into halves and partially demineralised using 37.0% phosphoric acid for 60 s. All samples are assessed using EDX and KHN prior to restorations. The samples are then subdivided into four groups (n = 5). Group 1 was restored with Activa BioActive-Restorative, Group 2 received Beautifil II, Group 3 was restored with GIC, and the last group was used as a negative control. After storage, the samples were analysed using EDX and KHN.
The demineralisation protocol with 37.0% phosphoric acid significantly decreased the calcium:phosphate (Ca:P) ratio and KHN. Remineralisation occurred in all groups, but the highest percentage change in Ca:P ratio and KHN was observed in the Activa BioActive-Restorative group (20.7%, 82.0%, respectively), followed by the Beautifil II group, glass ionomer group, and the control group, in that order.
Activa BioActive-Restorative restoration presents superior remineralisation compared to Beautifil II and glass-ionomer dental restorations.
微创牙科提倡保守性龋洞挖掘以及剩余牙体组织的再矿化。然而，由于牙本质和釉质组成不同，牙本质再矿化比釉质再矿化更困难。本研究旨在评估Activa生物活性修复材料和Beautifil II修复材料对脱矿牙本质样本的再矿化潜力，并使用能量色散X射线（EDX）和努氏硬度值（KHN）将其与玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）修复材料进行比较。
使用非龋性拔除的磨牙，总共十颗牙齿被切成两半，并用37.0%的磷酸脱矿60秒。所有样本在修复前使用EDX和KHN进行评估。然后将样本分为四组（n = 5）。第1组用Activa生物活性修复材料修复，第2组使用Beautifil II，第3组用GIC修复，最后一组作为阴性对照。储存后，使用EDX和KHN对样本进行分析。
37.0%磷酸的脱矿方案显著降低了钙磷（Ca:P）比和KHN。所有组均发生了再矿化，但Ca:P比和KHN的最高百分比变化出现在Activa生物活性修复材料组（分别为20.7%和82.0%），其次是Beautifil II组、玻璃离子水门汀组和对照组，顺序依次为上述排列。
与Beautifil II和玻璃离子水门汀牙科修复材料相比，Activa生物活性修复材料呈现出更好的再矿化效果。
