Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T02:54:39.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interfacial Properties of Three Different Bioactive Dentine Substitutes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2013

Elizabeta S. Gjorgievska ,
John W. Nicholson ,
Sonja M. Apostolska ,
Nichola J. Coleman ,
Samantha E. Booth ,
Ian J. Slipper  and
Mitko I. Mladenov
Elizabeta S. Gjorgievska*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Dental Medicine, University “Sts Cyril and Methodius”Skopje 1000, Republic of Macedonia
John W. Nicholson
Affiliation:
St Mary's University College, Twickenham, London TW1 4SX, UK
Sonja M. Apostolska
Affiliation:
Faculty of Dental Medicine, University “Sts Cyril and Methodius”Skopje 1000, Republic of Macedonia
Nichola J. Coleman
Affiliation:
School of Science, University of Greenwich, Chatham, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
Samantha E. Booth
Affiliation:
School of Science, University of Greenwich, Chatham, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
Ian J. Slipper
Affiliation:
School of Science, University of Greenwich, Chatham, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
Mitko I. Mladenov
Affiliation:
Faculty of Natural Sciences, University “Sts Cyril and Methodius”Skopje 1000, Republic of Macedonia
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: egjorgievska@stomfak.ukim.edu.mk
Get access

Abstract

Three different bioactive materials suitable as dentine substitutes in tooth repair have been studied: glass-ionomer cement, particulate bioglass, and calcium-silicate cement. On 15 permanent human molars, Class V cavities were prepared and the bottom of each cavity was de-mineralized by an artificial caries gel. After the de-mineralization, the teeth were restored with: (1) Bioglass®45S5 and ChemFil® Superior; (2) Biodentine™ and ChemFil® Superior; and (3) ChemFil® Superior for a complete repair. The teeth were stored for 6 weeks in artificial saliva, then cut in half along the longitudinal axis: the first half was imaged in a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the other half was embedded in resin and analyzed by SEM using energy-dispersive X-ray analysis. The glass-ionomer and the bioglass underwent ion exchange with the surrounding tooth tissue, confirming their bioactivity. However, the particle size of the bioglass meant that cavity adaptation was poor. It is concluded that smaller particle size bioglasses may give more acceptable results. In contrast, both the glass-ionomer and the calcium-silicate cements performed well as dentine substitutes. The glass-ionomer showed ion exchange properties, whereas the calcium silicate gave an excellent seal resulting from its micromechanical attachment.

Keywords

dentine substitutesglass-ionomerbioglasscalcium silicateion-exchangeglass-ionomer cement
Type
Biomedical and Biological Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , December 2013 , pp. 1450 - 1457
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

About, I., Bottero, M.-J., de Denato, P., Camps, J., Franquin, J.-C. & Mitsiadis, T.A. (2000). Human dentin production in vitro . Exp Cell Res 258, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arends, J., Ruben, J. & Dijkman, A.G. (1990). The effect of fluoride release from a fluoride containing composite resin on secondary caries: An in vitro study. Quintessence Int 21, 671–674.Google ScholarPubMed
Arends, J. & TenBosch, J.J. (1985). In vivo de- and remineralization of dental enamel. In Factors Relating to Demineralization and Remineralization of the Teeth, Leach, S.A. (Ed.), pp. 1–11. Oxford: IRL Press.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A., Watson, T.F. & Kidd, E.A. (2001). Dentine caries: Take it or leave it? SADJ 56, 186–192.Google Scholar
Camilleri, J., Montesin, F.E., Brady, K., Sweeney, R., Curtis, R.V. & Pitt Ford, T.R. (2005). The constitution of mineral trioxyde aggregate. Dent Mater 21, 297–303.Google Scholar
Camilleri, J., Montesin, F.E., Curtis, R.V. & Pitt Ford, T.R. (2006). Characterization of Portland cement for use as a dental restorative material. Dent Mater 22, 569–575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donly, K.J. & Grandgennett, C. (1998). Dentin demineralization inhibition at restoration margins of Vitremer, Dyract and Compoglass. Am J Dent 11, 245–247.Google ScholarPubMed
Gjorgievska, E. & Nicholson, J.W. (2011). Prevention of enamel demineralization after tooth bleaching by bioactive glass incorporated into toothpaste. Aust Dent J 56, 193–200.Google Scholar
Gjorgievska, E., Nicholson, J.W. & Grcev, A.T. (2012). Ion migration from fluoride-releasing dental restorative materials into dental hard tissues. J Mater Sci Mater Med 23, 1811–1821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gjorgievska, E., Nicholson, J.W., Iljovska, S. & Slipper, I.J. (2008). Marginal adaptation and performance of bioactive dental restorative materials in deciduous and young permanent teeth. J Appl Oral Sci 16, 1–6.Google Scholar
Gjorgievska, E., Nicholson, J.W., Iljovska, S. & Slipper, I. (2009). The potential of fluoride-releasing dental restoratives to inhibit enamel demineralization: An SEM study. Prilozi 30, 191–204.Google Scholar
Hench, L.L., Clark, A.E., Schaake, J.R. & Schaake, H.F. (1972). Effects of microstructure on the radiation stability of amorphous semiconductors. J Non-Crys Sol 8–10, 837–843.Google Scholar
Hench, L.L. & West, J.K. (1996). Biological applications of bioactive glasses. Life Chem Rep 13, 187–241.Google Scholar
Ingle, J.I. & Bakland, L.K. (2002). Pediatric endodontics. In Endodontics, 5th ed., Ingle, J.I. & Bakland, L.K. (Eds.), p. 866. New York: BC Decker Inc. Google Scholar
Koubi, G., Colon, P., Franquin, J., Hartmann, A., Richard, G., Faure, M.O., Koubi, S., Raskin, A., Dejou, J., About, I., Tassery, H., Camps, J. & Proust, J.P. (2010). Effect of dual cure composite as dentin substitute on the marginal integrity of Class II open-sandwich restorations. Oper Dent 35, 165–171.Google Scholar
Koubi, G., Colon, P., Franquin, J., Hartmann, A., Richard, G., Faure, M.O. & Lambert, G. (2013). Clinical evaluation of the performance and safety of a new dentine substitute, biodentine, in the restoration of posterior teeth—A prospective study. Clin Oral Investig 17, 243–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laurent, P., Camps, J., De Méo, M., Déjou, J. & About, I. (2008). Induction of specific cell responses to a Ca3SiO5-based posterior restorative material. Dent Mater 24, 1486–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mount, G. (2012). Minimal intervention in dentistry: Glass-ionomers. J Minim Interv Dent 5, 43–51.Google Scholar
Ngo, H.C., Mount, G., Mc Intyre, J., Tuisuva, J. & Von Doussa, R.J. (2006). Chemical exchange between glass-ionomer restorations and residual carious dentine in permanent molars: An in vivo study. J Dent 34, 608–613.Google Scholar
Nicholson, J.W. & Amiri, M.A. (1998). The interaction of dental cements with aqueous solutions of varying pH. J Mater Sci Mater Med 9, 549–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salonen, J.I., Arjasmaa, M., Tuominen, U., Behbehani, M.J. & Zaatar, E.I. (2009). Bioactive glass in dentistry. J Minim Interv Dent 2, 208–218.Google Scholar
Santos, A.D., Moraes, J.C., Araujo, E.B., Yukimitu, K. & Valerio Filho, W.V. (2005). Physico-chemical properties of MTA and a novel experimental cement. Int Endod J 38, 443–447.Google Scholar
ten Cate, J.M. & van Duinen, R.N.B. (1995). Hypermineralization of dentinal lesions adjacent to glass-ionomer cement restorations. J Dent Res 76, 1266–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torabinejad, M., Hong, C.U., McDonald, F. & Pitt Ford, T.R. (1995). Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling mateial. J Endod 21, 349–353.Google Scholar
Wang, X., Sun, H. & Chang, J. (2008). Characterization of Ca(3)SiO(5)/CaCl(2) composite cement for dental application. Dent Mater 24, 74–82.Google Scholar
Wang, Z., Jiang, T., Sauro, S., Pashley, D.H., Toledano, M., Osorio, R., Liang, S., Xing, W., Sa, Y. & Wang, Y. (2011). The dentine remineralization activity of a desensitizing bioactive glass-containing toothpaste: An in vitro study. Aust Dent J 56, 372–381.Google Scholar
Wongkornchaowalit, N. & Lertchirakarn, V. (2011). Setting time and flowability of accelerated Portland cement mixed with polycarboxylate superplasticizer. J Endod 37, 387–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, W., Wang, J., Zhai, W., Wang, Z. & Chang, J. (2005). The self-setting properties and in vitro bioactivity of tricalcium silicate. Biomaterials 26, 6113–6121.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B.F., Rawls, H.R. & Querens, A.E. (1984). Prevention of in vitro secondary caries with an experimental fluoride-exchanging restorative resin. J Dent Res 63, 689–692.Google Scholar