Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Hoda S. Ismail (Department of Operative Dentistry Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University) ;
  • Brian R. Morrow (Department of Bioscience Research, College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee Health Science Center) ;
  • Ashraf I. Ali (Department of Operative Dentistry Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University) ;
  • Rabab El. Mehesen (Department of Operative Dentistry Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University) ;
  • Franklin Garcia-Godoy (Department of Bioscience Research, College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee Health Science Center) ;
  • Salah H. Mahmoud (Department of Operative Dentistry Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University)
  • Received : 2022.02.07
  • Accepted : 2022.06.15
  • Published : 2022.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge Dr. Erno Lindner, Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Memphis, USA, for the digital microscopy part of this study and Professor John Nicholson, Director of Bluefield Centre for Biomaterials, London, UK, and Senior Research Fellow, Dental Physical Sciences Unit, Institute of Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, for reviewing and editing the final draft of this manuscript.

References

  1. Zhou X, Huang X, Li M, Peng X, Wang S, Zhou X, Cheng L. Development and status of resin composite as dental restorative materials. J Appl Polym Sci 2019;136:48180.
  2. Kielbassa AM, Philipp F. Restoring proximal cavities of molars using the proximal box elevation technique: Systematic review and report of a case. Quintessence Int 2015;46:751-764.
  3. Veneziani M. Adhesive restorations in the posterior area with subgingival cervical margins: new classification and differentiated treatment approach. Eur J Esthet Dent 2010;5:50-76.
  4. Al-Harbi F, Kaisarly D, Michna A, ArRejaie A, Bader D, El Gezawi M. Cervical interfacial bonding effectiveness of Class II bulk versus incremental fill resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2015;40:622-635. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-152-L
  5. Manuja N, Nagpal R, Pandit IK. Dental adhesion: mechanism, techniques and durability. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;36:223-234.
  6. Juloski J, Koken S, Ferrari M. Cervical margin relocation in indirect adhesive restorations: a literature review. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:273-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.09.005
  7. Lindberg A, van Dijken JW, Lindberg M. 3-year evaluation of a new open sandwich technique in Class II cavities. Am J Dent 2003;16:33-36.
  8. Dietschi D, Spreafico R. Current clinical concepts for adhesive cementation of tooth-colored posterior restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998;10:47-54.
  9. Ilgenstein I, Zitzmann NU, Buhler J, Wegehaupt FJ, Attin T, Weiger R, Krastl G. Influence of proximal box elevation on the marginal quality and fracture behavior of root-filled molars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic or composite onlays. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:1021-1028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1325-z
  10. Vertolli TJ, Martinsen BD, Hanson CM, Howard RS, Kooistra S, Ye L. Effect of deep margin elevation on CAD/CAM-fabricated ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 2020;45:608-617. https://doi.org/10.2341/18-315-L
  11. Grubbs TD, Vargas M, Kolker J, Teixeira EC. Efficacy of direct restorative materials in proximal box elevation on the margin quality and fracture resistance of molars restored with CAD/CAM onlays. Oper Dent 2020;45:52-61.
  12. Miletic I, Baraba A, Basso M, Pulcini MG, Markovic D, Peric T, Ozkaya CA, Turkun LS. Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system compared with a resin composite in the posterior region: Results of a 2-year multicenter study. J Adhes Dent 2020;22:235-247.
  13. Moshaverinia M, Navas A, Jahedmanesh N, Shah KC, Moshaverinia A, Ansari S. Comparative evaluation of the physical properties of a reinforced glass ionomer dental restorative material. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:154-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.012
  14. Mahmoud SH, Al-Wakeel ES. Marginal adaptation of ormocer-, silorane-, and methacrylate-based composite restorative systems bonded to dentin cavities after water storage. Quintessence Int 2011;42:e131-e139.
  15. Al-Harbi F, Kaisarly D, Bader D, El Gezawi M. Marginal integrity of bulk versus incremental fill Class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2016;41:146-156. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-306-L
  16. Aggarwal V, Bhasin SS. Application of calcium silicate materials after acid etching may preserve resin-dentin bonds. Oper Dent 2018;43:E243-E252. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-306-L
  17. Heintze SD. Systematic reviews: I. The correlation between laboratory tests on marginal quality and bond strength. II. The correlation between marginal quality and clinical outcome. J Adhes Dent 2007;9 Supplement 1:77-106.
  18. Heintze SD. Clinical relevance of tests on bond strength, microleakage and marginal adaptation. Dent Mater 2013;29:59-84.
  19. Han SH, Park SH. Incremental and bulk-fill techniques with bulk-fill resin composite in different cavity configurations. Oper Dent 2018;43:631-641. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-279-LR
  20. Irie M, Suzuki K, Watts DC. Delayed polishing technique on glass-ionomer restorations. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2009;45:14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2009.01.001
  21. KEYENCE. VHX-1000 series digital microscope data sheet [Internet]. Available from: https://www.keyence.com/products/microscope/digital-microscope/vhx-1000/models/vhx-1000e/ (cited December 20, 2021).
  22. Aggarwal V, Singla M, Yadav S, Yadav H. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies. J Dent 2014;42:619-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.016
  23. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjor I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:349-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8
  24. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9:215-232.
  25. Ernst CP, Canbek K, Euler T, Willershausen B. In vivo validation of the historical in vitro thermocycling temperature range for dental materials testing. Clin Oral Investig 2004;8:130-138.
  26. Bousses Y, Brulat-Bouchard N, Tillier Y. Effects of ageing on glass-polymer dental composites. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2020;23 Supplement 1:S47-S48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2020.1822044
  27. Francois P, Vennat E, Le Goff S, Ruscassier N, Attal JP, Dursun E. Shear bond strength and interface analysis between a resin composite and a recent high-viscous glass ionomer cement bonded with various adhesive systems. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:2599-2608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2678-5
  28. Kandaswamy D, Rajan KJ, Venkateshbabu N, Porkodi I. Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to glass-ionomer cement using self-etching bonding agents with different pH: In vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2012;15:27-31. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.92602
  29. Alqudaihi FS, Cook NB, Diefenderfer KE, Bottino MC, Platt JA. Comparison of internal adaptation of bulk-fill and increment-fill resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2019;44:E32-E44. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-269-L
  30. Cavalcanti AN, Mitsui FH, Lima AF, Mathias P, Marchi GM. Evaluation of dentin hardness and bond strength at different walls of class II preparations. J Adhes Dent 2010;12:183-188.
  31. Munevveroglu AP, Ozsoy A, Ozcan M. Microleakage of high viscosity glass-ionomer and glass-carbomer with and without coating before and after hydrothermal aging. Braz Dent Sci 2019;22:79-87. https://doi.org/10.14295/bds.2019.v22i1.1631
  32. Aydin N, Karaoglanoglu S, Aybala-Oktay E, Cetinkaya S, Erdem O. Investigation of water sorption and aluminum releases from high viscosity and resin modified glass ionomer. J Clin Exp Dent 2020;12:e844-e851.
  33. Troca VB, Fernandes KB, Terrile AE, Marcucci MC, Andrade FB, Wang L. Effect of green propolis addition to physical mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19:100-105. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572011000200004
  34. Pinto-Sinai G, Brewster J, Roberts H. Linear coefficient of thermal expansion evaluation of glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 2018;43:E266-E272. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-381-L
  35. de Oliveira BM, Agostini IE, Baesso ML, Menezes-Silva R, Borges AF, Navarro MF, Nicholson JW, Sidhu SK, Pascotto RC. Influence of external energy sources on the dynamic setting process of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2019;35:450-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.003
  36. Nicholson JW. Glass ionomer dental cements: update. Mater Technol 2010;25:8-13. https://doi.org/10.1179/175355509X12614966220506
  37. Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 2016;7:16.
  38. Ngo H, Mount GJ, Peters MC. A study of glass-ionomer cement and its interface with enamel and dentin using a low-temperature, high-resolution scanning electron microscopic technique. Quintessence Int 1997;28:63-69.
  39. Nicholson JW. Maturation processes in glass-ionomer dental cements. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand 2018;4:63-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/23337931.2018.1497492
  40. Buldur M, Sirin Karaarslan E. Microhardness of glass carbomer and high-viscous glass Ionomer cement in different thickness and thermo-light curing durations after thermocycling aging. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:273.
  41. Karadas M, Atici MG. Bond strength and adaptation of pulp capping materials to dentin. Microsc Res Tech 2020;83:514-522. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23440
  42. Hoshika S, Ting S, Ahmed Z, Chen F, Toida Y, Sakaguchi N, Van Meerbeek B, Sano H, Sidhu SK. Effect of conditioning and 1 year aging on the bond strength and interfacial morphology of glass-ionomer cement bonded to dentin. Dent Mater 2021;37:106-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2020.10.016
  43. Garcia-Godoy F, Kramer N, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R. Long-term degradation of enamel and dentin bonds: 6-year results in vitro vs. in vivo. Dent Mater 2010;26:1113-1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.07.012
  44. Bertoldi C, Monari E, Cortellini P, Generali L, Lucchi A, Spinato S, Zaffe D. Clinical and histological reaction of periodontal tissues to subgingival resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24:1001-1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02998-7
  45. Ferrari M, Koken S, Grandini S, Ferrari Cagidiaco E, Joda T, Discepoli N. Influence of cervical margin relocation (CMR) on periodontal health: 12-month results of a controlled trial. J Dent 2018;69:70-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.008
  46. Juloski J, Koken S, Ferrari M. No correlation between two methodological approaches applied to evaluate cervical margin relocation. Dent Mater J 2020;39:624-632. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2018-410