Are S-PRG composites able to resist against erosive and abrasive challenges and protect surrounding enamel in situ?
•S-PRG materials and resin composites present lower wear material than GICs on erosion.•In erosion-abrasion, S-PRG materials and resin composites wear less than GICs.•S-PRG materials are not able to protect surrounding enamel against erosion-abrasion. This study evaluated the resistance of S-PRG (Su...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of dentistry 2024-03, Vol.142, p.104874-104874, Article 104874 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | •S-PRG materials and resin composites present lower wear material than GICs on erosion.•In erosion-abrasion, S-PRG materials and resin composites wear less than GICs.•S-PRG materials are not able to protect surrounding enamel against erosion-abrasion.
This study evaluated the resistance of S-PRG (Surface Pre-Reacted Glass-ionomer) composites and other restorative materials against erosive and abrasive challenges and their protective effect on enamel adjacent to the restorations.
Bovine enamel blocks were prepared and randomized into 12 groups, including 6 types of material, each of them subjected to erosion_e or erosion+abrasion_ea: Beautifil II (S-PRG); Beautifil Bulk Restorative (S-PRG); Filtek Z250 XT; Filtek Bulk Fill; EQUIA Forte; Riva Light Cure. Cavities were prepared in the middle of enamel blocks and restored with the materials. Initial profiling measurement was performed on the material and on adjacent enamel (100, 200, 300, 600 and 700 μm from the restoration margin). Palatal intraoral appliances with the restored enamel blocks were used by the volunteers (n = 10). During 5 days appliances were immersed in 2.5 % citric acid for 2 min; 6 × /day (erosion_e). For ea condition, blocks were brushed for 1 min after each acid immersion. Final profile assessment was performed. Data were analysed by two and three way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test (p < 0.05).
Material wear: Riva Light Cure showed the highest wear followed by EQUIA Forte and then all resin composites, including the ones with S-PRG (p = 0.000). Enamel wear: there was significant interaction among type of restorative material, wear condition and distance (p = 0.014), enamel around materials showed similar wear (p = 0.983) and the enamel subjected to ea exhibited highest wear (p = 0.000).
SPRG based composites showed resistance against erosive and abrasive challenges but were not able to protect enamel adjacent to the restorations.
S-PRG composites exhibit resistance to material wear comparable to resin composites. However, they have shown an inability to effectively protect the adjacent enamel under in situ erosive-abrasive conditions, despite the presence of mineral-loss-preventing ions surrounding materials. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0300-5712 1879-176X |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104874 |