Microhardness and elemental analysis of ion-releasing restoration/ dentin interface following enzymatic chemomechanical caries excavation.
Humans
Dental Caries
/ therapy
Dentin
Hardness
Glass Ionomer Cements
/ chemistry
Dental Cavity Preparation
/ methods
Phosphorus
/ analysis
Papain
/ therapeutic use
Surface Properties
Dental Restoration, Permanent
/ methods
Spectrometry, X-Ray Emission
Spectrum Analysis, Raman
Calcium
/ analysis
Molar
Tooth Remineralization
/ methods
Aluminum
Silicon Dioxide
Materials Testing
Bioactive
Chemomechanical
Glass hybrid
Glass ionomer
Remineralization
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 May 2024
19 May 2024
Historique:
received:
25
02
2024
accepted:
29
04
2024
medline:
20
5
2024
pubmed:
20
5
2024
entrez:
19
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study was conducted to compare chemical, elemental and surface properties of sound and carious dentin after application of two restorative materials resin-modified glassionomer claimed to be bioactive and glass hybrid restorative material after enzymatic chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) agent. Forty carious and twenty non-carious human permanent molars were used. Molars were randomly distributed into three main groups: Group 1 (negative control) - sound molars, Group 2 (positive control) - molars were left without caries removal and Group 3 (Test Group) caries excavated with enzymatic based CMCR agent. After caries excavation and restoration application, all specimens were prepared Vickers microhardness test (VHN), for elemental analysis using Energy Dispersive Xray (EDX) mapping and finally chemical analysis using Micro-Raman microscopy. Vickers microhardness values of dentin with the claimed bioactive GIC specimens was statistically higher than with glass hybrid GIC specimens. EDX analysis at the junction estimated: Calcium and Phosphorus of the glass hybrid GIC showed insignificantly higher mean valued than that of the bioactive GIC. Silica and Aluminum mean values at the junction were significantly higher with bioactive GIC specimens than glass hybrid GIC specimen. Micro-raman spectroscopy revealed that bioactive GIC specimens showed higher frequencies of v It was concluded that ion-releasing bioactive resin-based restorative material had increased the microhardness and remineralization rate of carries affected and sound dentin. In addition, enzymatic caries excavation with papain-based CMCR agent has no adverse effect on dentin substrate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study was conducted to compare chemical, elemental and surface properties of sound and carious dentin after application of two restorative materials resin-modified glassionomer claimed to be bioactive and glass hybrid restorative material after enzymatic chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) agent.
METHODS
METHODS
Forty carious and twenty non-carious human permanent molars were used. Molars were randomly distributed into three main groups: Group 1 (negative control) - sound molars, Group 2 (positive control) - molars were left without caries removal and Group 3 (Test Group) caries excavated with enzymatic based CMCR agent. After caries excavation and restoration application, all specimens were prepared Vickers microhardness test (VHN), for elemental analysis using Energy Dispersive Xray (EDX) mapping and finally chemical analysis using Micro-Raman microscopy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Vickers microhardness values of dentin with the claimed bioactive GIC specimens was statistically higher than with glass hybrid GIC specimens. EDX analysis at the junction estimated: Calcium and Phosphorus of the glass hybrid GIC showed insignificantly higher mean valued than that of the bioactive GIC. Silica and Aluminum mean values at the junction were significantly higher with bioactive GIC specimens than glass hybrid GIC specimen. Micro-raman spectroscopy revealed that bioactive GIC specimens showed higher frequencies of v
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
It was concluded that ion-releasing bioactive resin-based restorative material had increased the microhardness and remineralization rate of carries affected and sound dentin. In addition, enzymatic caries excavation with papain-based CMCR agent has no adverse effect on dentin substrate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38764034
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04304-8
pii: 10.1186/s12903-024-04304-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
581Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Eick JDGA, Pashley DH, Robinson SJ. Current concepts on adhesion to dentin. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997;8:306–35.
doi: 10.1177/10454411970080030501
pubmed: 9260046
Van Meerbeek B, et al. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003;28:215–35.
pubmed: 12760693
Alkhudhairy F, Vohra F, Naseem M, Ahmad ZHJP, Therapy P. Adhesive bond integrity of dentin conditioned by photobiomodulation and bonded to bioactive restorative material. 2019;28:110–3.
Abou ElReash A, Hamama H, Abdo W, Wu Q, Zaen El-Din A, Xiaoli XJBOH. Biocompatibility of new bioactive resin composite versus calcium silicate cements: an animal study. 2019;19(1):1–10.
Ca M-KJJADA. Minimally invasive dentistry. 2003;134:87–95.
Hamama H, Yiu C, Burrow MF. King NJAdj: Chemical, morphological and microhardness changes of dentin after chemomechanical caries removal. 2013;58(3):283–92.
Guo Y-R, Cao Q-D, Hong Z-S, Tan Y-Y, Chen S-D, Jin H-J, Tan K-S, Wang D-Y. Yan YJMmr: The origin, transmission and clinical therapies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak–an update on the status. 2020;7:1–10.
Hamama H, Yiu C, Burrow, MJAdj. Current update of chemomechanical caries removal methods. 2014;59(4):446–56.
Jain K, Bardia A, Geetha S, Goel AJICRR. Papacarie: a chemomechanical caries removal agent. 2015;1(9):57–60.
Hamdi K, Hamama HH, Motawea A, Fawzy A, Mahmoud SH. Remineralization of early enamel lesions with a novel prepared tricalcium silicate paste. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):9926.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13608-0
pubmed: 35705597
pmcid: 9200717
Ana ID, Anggraeni R. Development of bioactive resin modified glass ionomer cement for dental biomedical applications. Heliyon. 2021;7(1):e05944.
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e05944
pubmed: 33506127
pmcid: 7814164
Reynolds EC. Calcium phosphate-based remineralization systems: scientific evidence? Aust Dent J. 2008;53(3):268–73.
doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00061.x
pubmed: 18782374
Ebaya MM, Ali AI, Mahmoud SHJEJD. Evaluation of marginal adaptation and microleakage of three glass ionomer-based class V restorations: in vitro study. 2019;13(04):599–606.
Vallittu PK, Boccaccini AR, Hupa L, Watts DCJDADM. Bioactive dental materials-Do they exist and what does bioactivity mean? In., 34;2018:693–4.
Pitel ML, Indications. Dent Today. 2017;36(2):130–4.
pubmed: 29235766
Sakoolnamarka R, Burrow MF, Kubo S, Tyas MJ. Morphological study of demineralized dentin after caries removal using two different methods. Aust Dent J. 2002;47(2):116–22.
doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00314.x
pubmed: 12139264
Pires Corrêa FN, Rodrigues Filho LE. Delgado Rodrigues CRMJJoCPD: evaluation of residual dentin after conventional and chemomechanical caries removal using SEM. 2007;32(2):115–20.
de Almeida Neves A, Coutinho E, Cardoso MV, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Current concepts and techniques for caries excavation and adhesion to residual dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2011;13(1):7–22.
pubmed: 21403932
Hamama H, Yiu C, Burrow M. Current update of chemomechanical caries removal methods. Aust Dent J. 2014;59(4):446–56. quiz 525.
doi: 10.1111/adj.12214
pubmed: 25131424
Chuenarrom C, Benjakul P, Daosodsai PJMR. Effect of indentation load and time on knoop and vickers microhardness tests for enamel and dentin. 2009;12:473–6.
Ferraz C, Mendonça JS, Fernandes CA, Rodrigues LKA. Yamauti MJAeO: effectiveness of different removal methods of artificially demineralized dentin. 2014;50(2).
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(2):154–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.012
pubmed: 31326149
Elkafrawy HE, El Hosary AM, Ghoname NA, Abozena NIJEDJ. Microbiological, histological and microhardness evaluation of dentin after caries removal with Papacárie and conventional methods in primary teeth. 2016;62(1-January (Part 3)):683–94.
Floyd CJ, Dickens SH. Network structure of Bis-GMA- and UDMA-based resin systems. Dent Mater. 2006;22(12):1143–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.10.009
pubmed: 16376422
Hamama HHH. Effect of dentin surface treatment on Bonding of Bioactive RMGI-based Restorative Material to dentin. Egypt Dent J. 2019;65:2999–3006. Issue 3 - July (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)).
doi: 10.21608/edj.2019.72695
Hamama HHH. Characterization of Bioactive Restoration/Dentin Interface. Egyptian Dental Journal 2019;65(Issue 3 - July (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)):2731–2738.
Bae J, Son WS, Yoo KH, Yoon SY, Bae MK, Lee DJ, Ko CC, Choi YK, Kim YI. Effects of Poly(Amidoamine) Dendrimer-Coated Mesoporous Bioactive Glass nanoparticles on dentin remineralization. Nanomaterials (Basel) 2019;9(4).
Al-Harbi N, Mohammed H, Al-Hadeethi Y, Bakry AS, Umar A, Hussein MA, Abbassy MA, Vaidya KG, Berakdar GA, Mkawi EM et al. Silica-based bioactive glasses and their applications in hard tissue regeneration: a review. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2021;14(2).
Ferraris S, Corazzari I, Turci F, Cochis A, Rimondini L, Verne E. Antioxidant activity of silica-based bioactive glasses. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2021;7(6):2309–16.
doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.1c00048
pubmed: 33905647
pmcid: 8290400
Raghip AG, Comisi JC, Hamama HH, Mahmoud SH. In vitro elemental and micromorphological analysis of the resin-dentin interface of bioactive and bulk-fill composites. Am J Dent. 2023;36(1):3–7.
pubmed: 36917708
Bittencourt ST, Pereira JR, Rosa AW, Oliveira KS, Ghizoni JS, Oliveira MT. Mineral content removal after Papacarie application in primary teeth: a quantitative analysis. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010;34(3):229–31.
doi: 10.17796/jcpd.34.3.k15t8q1805538524
pubmed: 20578660