Preventing proximal enamel caries in neighboring tooth with glass ionomer cement restoration and silver diamine fluoride pretreatment.

Autor: Ge KX; Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong Special administrative regions of China., Jakubovics NS; Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong Special administrative regions of China; School of Dental Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4BW, UK., Quock R; Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong Special administrative regions of China; University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston, Houston, TX, USA., Lam WY; Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong Special administrative regions of China., Chu CH; Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong Special administrative regions of China., Yu OY; Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong Special administrative regions of China. Electronic address: ollieyu@hku.hk.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of dentistry [J Dent] 2024 Oct; Vol. 149, pp. 105312. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Aug 16.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105312
Abstrakt: Objective: To investigate caries preventive effects of 38 % silver diamine fluoride (SDF) pretreatment on neighboring tooth proximal to glass ionomer cement (GIC), including conventional GIC (CGIC) and resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) restorations in an in vitro model.
Methods: HUMAN TOOTH BLOCKS WERE RESTORED WITH: SDF+CGIC (Group 1), CGIC (Group 2), SDF+RMGIC (Group 3) or RMGIC (Group 4). Enamel specimen simulating proximal surface of neighboring tooth was placed in proximity to the restorations. The specimen underwent cariogenic challenge with cross-kingdom biofilm of Streptococcus mutans, Lacticaseibacillus casei and Candida albicans. After cariogenic challenge, the biofilm's growth kinetics, viability, and morphology were evaluated by propidium monoazide-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PMA-qPCR), confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), respectively. The enamel lesion depth, surface morphology and crystal characteristics were determined by micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), SEM and X-ray diffraction (XRD), respectively.
Results: PMA-qPCR demonstrated lower microbial growth in Group 1 and 3 compared with Group 2 and 4 (p < 0.05). CLSM showed the dead-to-live ratio in Groups 1-4 were 1.15±0.12, 0.53±0.13, 1.10±0.24 and 0.63±0.10, respectively (Group 1,3 > 2,4, p < 0.05). SEM revealed Groups 1 and 3 had scattered biofilm whereas Group 2 and 4 had confluent biofilm. Micro-CT showed the enamel lesion depths (µm) were 98±9, 126±7, 103±6 and 128±7 for Group 1 to 4, respectively (Group 1,3 < 2,4, p < 0.05). SEM revealed oriented and ordered enamel prismatic patterns in Group 1 and 3, not in Group 2 and 4. XRD showed the reflections of hydroxyapatite in Groups 1 and 3 were sharper than Groups 2 and 4.
Conclusion: SDF pretreatment enhances the preventive effect of GIC on proximal enamel surface on neighboring tooth through inhibiting cariogenic biofilm, reducing enamel demineralization and promoting enamel remineralization.
Clinical Significance: SDF pretreatment of GIC restorations can help prevent caries on neighboring teeth, particular for patients with high caries risk.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: