In vivo vs in vitro anticariogenic behavior of glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the in vivo vs the in vitro anticariogenic potential of glass-ionomer and resin composite restoratives, utilizing a standardized interfacial gap model.


METHODS
(a) In vitro study. Box shaped cavities were prepared at the buccal surfaces of extracted premolars limited to enamel. The incisal cavity walls received no treatment and were covered with 40 microm-thick metal spacers. The cavities were restored with a glass-ionomer (Ketac-Fil, n=8) and a fluoride-free resin composite (Scotchbond MP Plus/Z100, n=8). After 4 weeks immersion in an acidic gel (pH 4), thin sections were produced and examined under polarized-light microscopy.(b) In vivo study. Four low caries activity volunteers, with first four premolars, each planned to be extracted for orthodontic reasons, participated in the study. Cavities were prepared as before and filled contralaterally per patient with glass-ionomer (n=8) and resin composite (n=8). After 6 months in vivo, the teeth were extracted, sectioned and investigated by polarized-light microscopy, Raman microspectroscopy and SEM-EDS X-ray microanalysis. Unpaired t-test (lesion dimensions) and one-way ANOVA and Newman-Keuls tests (Ca, P wt%, Ca/P ratios) were used to identify statistically significant differences in lesion analysis (alpha=0.05).


RESULTS
(a) In vitro study. All restorations developed lesions at incisal and cervical margins. At gap-free regions glass-ionomers showed reduced lesion dimensions compared to those of composites (p<0.05). At regions with gaps, no significant differences were found in lesion depth between the restorative groups tested. Lesion length was increased in composite, and decreased in glass-ionomer, whereas lesion depth in both restorative groups was increased in comparison to gap-free regions (p<0.05).(b) In vivo study. No lesions were observed at gap-free regions. At gap regions, 75.5% of glass-ionomer and 62.5% of composite restorations developed lesions. The lesion dimensions were significantly greater in glass-ionomer (p<0.05). A reduction in PO4(3-), CO3(2-), Ca and P was found in lesions compared to intact tissues. No F was detected and no CaF2 lattice vibrations were found at the enamel margins facing the gap adjacent to glass-ionomers.


CONCLUSIONS
In the presence of a standardized interfacial gap, no preventive effect was exerted in vivo from the glass-ionomer to protect the adjacent enamel wall from secondary caries attack. The lack of any correlation between the in vivo and in vitro models tested implies that artificial caries experiments have a negligible clinical relevance in predicting the in vivo effect.
Papagiannoulis
Lisa
L
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Athens, 2 Thivon Street (Goudi), 115 27, Athens, Greece. lipap@otenet.gr
Kakaboura
Afrodite
A
Eliades
George
G
D000293:Adolescent; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001641:Bicuspid; D002327:Cariostatic Agents; D002648:Child; D003188:Composite Resins; D003731:Dental Caries / Q000517:prevention & control*; D018865:Dental Research / Q000379:methods*; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D004577:Electron Probe Microanalysis; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D008298:Maleates; D008859:Microscopy, Polarization; D012107:Research Design; D055502:Secondary Prevention; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; D013059:Spectrum Analysis, Raman; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D015040:Zirconium
D002327:Cariostatic Agents; D003188:Composite Resins; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008298:Maleates; C083568:Z100 composite resin; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; C040964:Ketac-Fil; D015040:Zirconium