The influence of different restorative materials on secondary caries development in situ

AbstractObjectives fect of direct restorative materials on caries lesion formation was investigated with an 8-week in situ study with split-mouth design, testing the hypothesis that no difference in mineral loss next to a restoration would be found between different composite-based-materials and amalgam. s oups (n = 18) of restored dentine samples were prepared using amalgam, a microhybrid, a nanohybrid and a silorane composite. The composites were adhesively bonded with systems with or without an antibacterial monomer (Clearfil-SE-Protect, Clearfil-SE-bond, respectively), except for the silorane group (Silorane-System-Adhesive). Non-restored dentine samples were used as control (primary caries). Samples were inserted into slots, in lower prosthesis especially made for the experiment. Subjects were instructed to dip the lower prosthesis in a sucrose solution 4 times per day. At baseline and 8 weeks, samples were radiographed extra-orally and the integrated mineral loss was calculated. Data were statistically analyzed using multiple linear regression with a multilevel model (p = 0.05). s ubjects were selected, and only outer lesions were observed. The hypothesis was partially rejected, as the microhybrid composite bonded with the antibacterial system and the nanohybrid composite presented statistically significant lower mineral loss compared to amalgam. Also, no significant differences were seen for these groups compared to control. sion the limits of this study, the restorative material may influence outer lesion progression. Amalgam was not found to be related to lower secondary caries progression in dentine compared to composite-based materials after 8 weeks in situ. al Significance gh patient factors play a major role in caries progression, the restorative material may affect outer secondary lesion progression.