In vitro microleakage of Biodentine as a dentin substitute compared to Fuji II LC in cervical lining restorations.
OBJECTIVE
1) To evaluate the marginal sealing efficacy of Biodentine at the cervical margins of approximal cavities placed in molars; 2) to evaluate and compare the use of Biodentine in combination with resin-based adhesives and a resin composite, compared with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Fuji II LC).


METHODS
Sixty approximal cavities were prepared on mesial and distal surfaces of 30 extracted human third molars. The teeth were randomly assigned into 6 groups of 10 cavities each: (G1) Biodentine, (G2) Fuji II LC as a filling material, (G3) Biodentine as a base + Optibond Solo Plus + silane + Filtek Z250, (G4) as in G3 without silane, (G5) Biodentine as a base + Septobond SE + Filtek Z250, (G6) Fuji II LC as a base + Optibond Solo Plus + Filtek Z250. The materials were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. Biodentine required no dentin or enamel surface conditioning treatment. The teeth were thermocycled 2500x (5°C to 55°C). The specimens were then sealed with a 1-mm window around the marginal interface. Samples were immersed in a 50% w/v silver nitrate solution and exposed to a photo developing solution. The teeth were embedded in resin (Sody 33) and sectioned through the restorations. The silver penetration was directly measured using a light microscope. The results were expressed as ordinal scores from 0 to 3 at cervical, interfacial, and enamel margins. The data were analyzed with the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis, Games Howell, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests (p < 0.05).


RESULTS
No statistically significant differences were found between the 6 groups, neither for the dentin cervical margins nor for cervical lining (Biodentine or Fuji II LC)/resin composite interfaces. Statistically significant differences were observed between G5 (median score = 2.0) and the other groups (median score = 1.0) for the enamel margins. Statistically significant differences were found between enamel and dentin cervical margins in G2 (enamel median score = 1.0; dentin median score = 1.5) and G5 (enamel median score = 2.0; dentin median score = 1.0).


CONCLUSIONS
Within the limits of this in vitro study, Biodentine as dentin substitute in cervical lining restorations or as a restorative material in approximal cavities when the cervical extent is under the CEJ seems to perform well without any conditioning treatment. However, the operating time is longer than when a RMGIC (Fuji II LC) is used.
Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. anne.raskin@univ-amu.fr
Anne
A
Raskin
Geoffroy
G
Eschrich
Jacques
J
Dejou
Imad
I
About
D017610:Calcium Compounds; D003736:Dental Cavity Lining; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000517:prevention & control*; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D058105:Polymerization; D057872:Pulp Capping and Pulpectomy Agents; D019279:Resin Cements; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D012821:Silanes; D017640:Silicates; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D019237:Tooth Cervix
D017610:Calcium Compounds; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; C079765:Fuji II LC cement; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; C451600:OptiBond Solo Plus; D057872:Pulp Capping and Pulpectomy Agents; D019279:Resin Cements; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D012821:Silanes; D017640:Silicates; C506393:tricalcium silicate