Biological evaluation of subgingivally placed direct resin composite materials

Navigating the practical-knowledge gap in deep margin elevation: A step towards a structured case selection - a review

The deep margin elevation (DME) technique has gained popularity because of numerous supporting case reports. However, some clinicians are cautious regarding using this technique owing to the lack of clear case selection criteria for DME application. This review aimed to analyze case reports and a series of DME cases to determine pre-/post-operative evaluation methods that could be used to suggest a pre-operative case selection checklist for DME. An electronic database search was conducted in June 2021 and updated by June 2023 using selected terms from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, EBSCO, and Scopus. The search was limited to English-language publications and was not restricted to the date. The inclusion criteria were case reports/series addressing periodontal and restorative outcomes of DME. The search identified 217 articles, 76 of which were pertinent. However, only six case reports and one case series satisfied the inclusion criteria. None of the selected studies followed any reporting guidelines, which led to significant information gaps. While the reviewed studies reported favorable outcomes, standardized protocols for evaluating pre-/post-operative restorative and periodontal status were lacking. The post-operative follow-up period varied from 3 months to 6 years. Designing and implementing pre-/post-operative guidelines hold the potential for ensuring the safe application of the DME technique. This may enhance our understanding of the suitability and efficacy of such non-invasive technique in future clinical trials.

Clinical significance

Handling deep cavities and preparing crowns are challenging. However, a lack of understanding of when to perform DME can lead to missed opportunities for conservative treatment, thereby a disservice to the patient. Provision of safe guidelines should be employed by clinicians until further evidence either supports or contradicts this treatment method.

Influence of the Scalpel Finishing Technique on Marginal Gap Formation in Class II Resin Composite Restorations

OBJECTIVES

Modern adhesives and composites allow the restoration of deep defects. In such cases, the matrix technique is particularly challenging, and excess composite is a common problem. Removing such overhangs with a scalpel has already been described as a substance preserving or selective finishing technique. Clinically, restoration margins may appear as a white line after scalpel finishing, and it is unclear whether this line represents a marginal gap and/or whether scalpel finishing promotes marginal gap formation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of scalpel finishing of deep Class II composite restorations on marginal gap formation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Standardized mesioocclusal-distal (MOD) cavities were prepared and restored in 60 human molars randomly divided into six finishing protocol groups: G1, scalpels (SC); G2, oscillating files (OF); G3, finishing strips (FS); G4, scalpels and finishing strips (SC+FS); G5, scalpels and polishing discs (SC+PD); G6, polishing discs alone (PD, controls). The groups were additionally assigned to finishing and polishing in a phantom head (groups 1-4) or hand-held setting (groups 5-6) to simulate clinical and in-vitro research conditions, respectively. After restoration, artificial aging was performed by thermocycling (5-55°C, 2500 cycles) and mechanical loading (50 newtons (N) with 500,000 cycles) prior to scanning electron microscopy analysis of proximal restoration margin quality on the mesial and distal surfaces (n=120) of each tooth. Outcomes (perfect margin, marginal gap, overhang, marginal fracture) were statistically analyzed by t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, single-factor analysis of variance, post-hoc t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn-Bonferroni correction for multiple group comparisons. Cohen's effect size d(Cohen) was calculated to show the strength of the relationship between variables.

RESULTS

Overall, marginal quality was significantly better in the hand-held setting (SC+PD and PD) than the phantom head setting (SC, OF, FS, SC+FS). The best marginal quality was achieved with oscillating files in the phantom head setting and with scalpels plus polishing discs in the hand-held setting. Marginal gaps occurred significantly more often with scalpels, but the proportion of gaps was very low and clinically insignificant. Finishing strips were the least effective instruments for removing overhangs but performed better in combination with scalpels.

CONCLUSIONS

Scalpel finishing can effectively and gently remove overhangs from enamel. However, blades should be used with caution as they can cut the dentin and cementum. Scalpel finishing does not lead to a clinically relevant increase in marginal gaps, but should be followed by polishing, whenever possible, to eliminate any marginal fractures that might be present.

Deep margin elevation-Present status and future directions

OBJECTIVE

Deep margin elevation (DME) is a treatment approach to relocate the cervical margin of teeth with subgingival defects to a supragingival position with a direct restoration to facilitate rubber dam isolation, impression taking, and bonding of indirect restorations. This article provides an overview of the current scientific evidence on DME and future directions for research.

OVERVIEW

The review included 38 studies on DME, most conducted in vitro. These studies indicate that DME has no detrimental effect on the fracture resistance of restored teeth. Evidence on the impact of DME on marginal quality is conflicting, but most in vitro studies observed no negative effect. Clinical studies, most comprising small patient cohorts, demonstrated favorable restorative outcomes and suggest that DME restorations made with scrupulous care are compatible with periodontal health. Bleeding on probing may occur more frequently at sites with DME, though evidence on this is not unequivocal.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence, based largely on laboratory studies and limited clinical data, supports DME as a viable approach to restore teeth with localized subgingival defects. However, further clinical studies with long-term follow-ups are required to provide corroborative evidence.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Current evidence suggests that DME is a viable approach to restore teeth with localized subgingival defects as a possible alternative to surgical crown lengthening. Proper working field isolation, meticulous care in the bonding and buildup procedure, and biofilm removal through patient-performed oral hygiene and professional maintenance care are crucial. As scant clinical trial-based evidence is available today, further research is needed to evaluate the long-term performance of DME restorations and their impact on periodontal health.

Cytotoxicity evaluation of dental and orthodontic light-cured composite resins

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to determine the cytotoxicity of light-cured composite resins (Clearfil ES-2, Clearfil ES Flow, Filtek Supreme XTE, Grengloo, Blugloo, Transbond XT, and Transbond LR) then to assess leachable components in contact with human gingival fibroblasts (GFs) and to quantity detected bisphenol A (BPA).

METHODS

Light-cured composite resin discs were immersed for 24 hours in gingival fibroblastic medium (n = 3 for each product) and in control medium (n = 2 for each product) contained in plate. Cytotoxicity of the products (n = 95) was determined by the measure of cell viability using MTT assay after reading the optical densities of the plates. The analysis of leachable components was done by gas phase chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and detected BPA was quantified. The limit of quantification was 0.01 μg/mL. Statistical analyses were performed by using IBM SPSS Statistics 20 and Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests were applied.

RESULTS

Cell viabilities were between 85 and 90%. Many chemical compounds including triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) and BPA were identified. The average concentrations were 0.67 μg/mL ± 0.84 in the control medium and 0.73 μg/mL ± 1.05 in the fibroblastic medium. Filtek Supreme XTE presented the highest concentration of BPA with 2.16 μg/mL ± 0.65 and Clearfil ES Flow presented the lowest with 0.25 μg/mL ± 0.35. No BPA was detected with Transbond XT and Transbond LR. Clearfil ES Flow, Filtek Supreme XTE, Grengloo and Transbond LR presented residual TEGDMA.

CONCLUSIONS

Light-cured composite resins are slightly cytotoxic opposite GFs and release many components including BPA and TEGDMA. Clinical precautions should be taken to decrease the release of these monomers.