PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(04): 635-641
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3401900
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Influence of Different Composites and Polishing Techniques on Periodontal Tissues near Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Controlled, Randomized, Blinded Clinical Trial

Nancielli Teixeira
1   Dental School, Western State University of Paraná, Cascavel, Paraná, Brazil
,
Mariana Benedetti Ferreira Webber
1   Dental School, Western State University of Paraná, Cascavel, Paraná, Brazil
,
Carlos Augusto Nassar
1   Dental School, Western State University of Paraná, Cascavel, Paraná, Brazil
,
Veridiana Camilotti
1   Dental School, Western State University of Paraná, Cascavel, Paraná, Brazil
,
Marcio José Mendonça
1   Dental School, Western State University of Paraná, Cascavel, Paraná, Brazil
,
Mario Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti
2   Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
31. Dezember 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objectives This study evaluated the long-term effect on gingival tissues near noncarious cervical lesions after restoration with different composites in association with two different polishing techniques.

Materials and Methods This study was conducted on 60 patients as a randomized, split-mouth, single-blind clinical trial and divided into four groups (n = 15) and restored using different composites (Tetric N-Ceram nanohibride or Z350 XT nanoparticles) and polishing materials (Astropol or Sof-Lex). The periodontal parameters analyzed were Silness–Löe plaque index; Silness–Löe gingival index; probing depth, clinical insertion level; and bleeding on probing. Periodontal analysis was performed before scaling and root planing at 30, 60, 120, and 180 days after restoration.

Statistical Analysis The data submitted to the Friedman’s test were employed for comparison between groups (p < 0.05).

Results Statistically significant differences between Z350/Astropol and other groups were observed for visible plaque and probing depth. Gingival index Tetric/Sof-Lex, the time factor did not influence the results. All experiment groups exhibited statistically significant differences in the clinical level of insertion when the follow-up time was considered. Percentage of bleeding on probing, in which there was a difference only with regard to group Tetric/Sof-Lex when the time factor was considered.

Conclusion The evaluated composites and polishing techniques did not exhibit differences in performance in the periodontal parameters analyzed at the end of 6 months of evaluation.

Keywords

inflammation - composite resins - dental polishing - noncarious cervical lesion
 

  • References

  • 1 Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 1994; 22 (04) 195-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y. et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003; 28 (03) 215-235
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Browning WD, Dennison JB. A survey of failure modes in composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 1996; 21 (04) 160-166
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bashetty K, Joshi S. The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on surface texture of two different resin composites. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13 (01) 34-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007; 19 (05) 265-273,
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 de Moraes RR, Gonçalves LdeS, Lancellotti AC, Consani S, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA. Nanohybrid resin composites: nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins?. Oper Dent 2009; 34 (05) 551-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sapra V, Taneja S, Kumar M. Surface geometry of various nanofiller composites using different polishing systems: a comparative study. J Conserv Dent 2013; 16 (06) 559-563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rosin M, Steffen H, Konschake C. et al. One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative-a multipractice clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2003; 7 (01) 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Santerre JP, Shajii L, Leung BW. Relation of dental composite formulations to their degradation and the release of hydrolyzed polymeric-resin-derived products. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2001; 12 (02) 136-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dutra D, Pereira G, Kantorski KZ, Valandro LF, Zanatta FB. Does finishing and polishing of restorative materials affect bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation? A systematic review. Oper Dent 2018; 43 (01) E37-E52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c332 10.1136/bmj.c332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Michael JA, Townsend GC, Greenwood LF, Kaidonis JA. Abfraction: separating fact from fiction. Aust Dent J 2009; 54 (01) 2-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Silness J, Loe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. II. correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta Odontol Scand 1964; 22: 121-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Loe H, Silness J. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. I. Prevalence and severity. Acta Odontol Scand 1963; 21: 533-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 dos Santos GG, Rego DM. The influence of a gummy smile on lip seal. J Int Acad Periodontol 2007; 9 (02) 53-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gurgel BC, Solera NG, Peixoto RF, Assis AO, Calderon PD, Medeiros MC. Evaluation of the periodontal conditions of teeth with restored and non-restored non-carious cervical lesions. Quintessence Int 2016; 47 (10) 825-831
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cazzaniga G, Ottobelli M, Ionescu AC. et al. In vitro biofilm formation on resin-based composites after different finishing and polishing procedures. J Dent 2017; 67: 43-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Berger SB, Palialol AR, Cavalli V, Giannini M. Surface roughness and staining susceptibility of composite resins after finishing and polishing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011; 23 (01) 34-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hassan AM, Nabih SM, Mossa HM, Baroudi K. The effect of three polishing systems on surface roughness of flowable, microhybrid, and packable resin composites. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015; 5 (03) 242-247
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lins FC, Ferreira RC, Silveira RR, Pereira CN, Moreira AN, Magalhães CS. Surface roughness, microhardness, and microleakage of a silorane-based composite resin after immediate or delayed finishing/polishing. Int J Dent 2016; 2016: 8346782
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nassar CA, Nassar PO, Secundes MB, Busato PdoM, Camilotti V. Composite resin restorations of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with diabetes mellitus and periodontal disease: pilot study. Acta Odontol Latinoam 2012; 25 (03) 279-286
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Al-Qutub. Gingival crevicular fluid and oral hygiene in Saudi dental students and interns. Pakistan Oral & Dental Journal 2009; 29: 337-340
    Google Scholar
  • 23 McCoy RB, Anderson MH, Lepe X, Johnson GH. Clinical success of class V composite resin restorations without mechanical retention. J Am Dent Assoc 1998; 129 (05) 593-599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Yaman BC, Doğruer I, Gümüştaş B, Efes BG. Three-year randomized clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18 (04) 1071-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Al-Agha EI, Alagha MI. Nanoleakage of class V resin restorations using two nanofilled adhesive systems. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7 (07) 6-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Peumans M, Wouters L, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt K. Nine-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent 2018; 20 (03) 195-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 2005; 21 (09) 864-881
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar