Objectives: Non carious class V lesions (abfractions, erosions, and mechanical abrasions) show considerable restorative problems: lesion configuration doesn’t allow mechanical retention, forcing to a discontinuous stress distribution, dental elements are subject to strong occlusal loads, the substrate for adhesion is secondary or sclerotic dentin. Therefore the choice between a traditional composite or a flowable composite is controversial. Methods: In this study two different composites were microbiologically evaluated, in order to verify if and how they modify superficial layer improving S.mutans adhesion and risk of secondary decay. Ten class V restoration were performed (n=5 traditional composite: Tetric-Evo Ceram, n=5 flow: Tetric-Evo Flow) with micro-layering technique, by one expert clinician (>10 years of clinical experience). A quadrant-based randomization was used to assign to the class V cavities the restoration material. Plaque samples were collected from restored elements, before the restoration and at 7 and 30 days recall. Bacterial DNA was extracted from plaque samples using a commercial kit, and processed with PCR-Realtime to identify S.mutans in samples and precisely quantify bacteria with the insertion of a marked probe specific for S.mutans-specific gtfB gene region. Results: All samples were positive for presence of bacterial DNA , confirming a correct procedure and processing. Only three samples were positive to S.mutans, one before restoration, two after 30 days, but showed a low amount of bacteria to represent a real active and statistical different presence of S.mutans. Conclusions: PCR-realtime still is an effective method for bacteria quantification. Data obtained can state that there isn’t a real difference between the two materials and none of them seems to improve S.mutans adhesion and decay risk.
Microbiological Characterization of Class V Restorations
BONFANTI, Carlo;BARABANTI, Nicola;CERUTTI, Antonio
2012-01-01
Abstract
Objectives: Non carious class V lesions (abfractions, erosions, and mechanical abrasions) show considerable restorative problems: lesion configuration doesn’t allow mechanical retention, forcing to a discontinuous stress distribution, dental elements are subject to strong occlusal loads, the substrate for adhesion is secondary or sclerotic dentin. Therefore the choice between a traditional composite or a flowable composite is controversial. Methods: In this study two different composites were microbiologically evaluated, in order to verify if and how they modify superficial layer improving S.mutans adhesion and risk of secondary decay. Ten class V restoration were performed (n=5 traditional composite: Tetric-Evo Ceram, n=5 flow: Tetric-Evo Flow) with micro-layering technique, by one expert clinician (>10 years of clinical experience). A quadrant-based randomization was used to assign to the class V cavities the restoration material. Plaque samples were collected from restored elements, before the restoration and at 7 and 30 days recall. Bacterial DNA was extracted from plaque samples using a commercial kit, and processed with PCR-Realtime to identify S.mutans in samples and precisely quantify bacteria with the insertion of a marked probe specific for S.mutans-specific gtfB gene region. Results: All samples were positive for presence of bacterial DNA , confirming a correct procedure and processing. Only three samples were positive to S.mutans, one before restoration, two after 30 days, but showed a low amount of bacteria to represent a real active and statistical different presence of S.mutans. Conclusions: PCR-realtime still is an effective method for bacteria quantification. Data obtained can state that there isn’t a real difference between the two materials and none of them seems to improve S.mutans adhesion and decay risk.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.