The influence of bonding agents on the decision to replace composite restorations

Decision-making of general practitioners on interventions at restorations based on bitewing radiographs

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare decision-making based on bitewing analysis of restored proximal surfaces by general dental practitioners (GDPs) with diagnossis and clinical decisions made by experts in cariology and restorative dentistry.

METHODS

This practice-based study used a database of 7 general dental practices. Posterior bitewing radiographs were selected from the electronic patient files of patients, and 770 cases of proximal restored surfaces were selected. Fifty percent of the cases which lead to the restorative decision, and the other half were cases decided for monitoring by the GDPs. Three experts performed radiographic assessment. The outcome variables were agreement of diagnosis and decision of treatment. Cohen's kappa statistic was used.

RESULTS

For the experts, moderate to substantial intraexaminer agreement was observed for the diagnostic criteria, and kappa values of 0.77, 0.79, and 0.88 were obtained for each expert regarding the treatment assignment. Agreement between GDPs and the majority of experts for secondary caries varied between 67 and 83%. One hundred seventy-three out of 385 cases that were treated by GDPs were decided for monitoring by the experts, while 8 cases that were decided for monitoring by the GDPs were decided for treatment. The agreement between experts and GDPs was moderate for secondary caries detection, and fair for treatment decision.

CONCLUSION

The GDPs tend to have a less conservative approach regarding the decision to intervene or not concerning the reassessment of restorations, showing moderate agreement with the experts for secondary caries detection and fair agreement regarding the treatment decision.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This study highlights that GDPs tend to have a less conservative approach to the decision to intervene or not in posterior restorations, compared to experts in cariology and restorative dentistry. Efforts should be made to reduce these differences based on minimally invasive dentistry.

The Thickness of the Adhesive Layer Increases the Misdiagnosing of the Radiolucent Zones and Restoration Replacement Indication

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the influence of the thickness of the adhesive layer and demineralized dentin on the decision to replace composite restoration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty human third molars with occlusal preparations (Class I) were randomly assigned to eight groups (n = 10): adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond [CSE] or Scotchbond Universal Adhesive [SBU]); the number of adhesive layers (one or two); and substrate (sound or demineralized dentin). A blinded examiner evaluated radiographs of each restored tooth. Obtained scores for the presence or absence of radiolucent zone under restoration were submitted to a relative risk (RR) calculus and Z-test, and the scores for the decision to replace restorations were submitted to Fisher's exact test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The relative risk of identifying a radiolucent zone under restoration in sound and demineralized dentin were, respectively, 2 and 1.85 times higher when two layers of adhesive were applied. Demineralized dentin did not increase the probability of identifying a radiolucent zone. A higher relative (1.6, p = 0.01) was observed when two layers of SBU were applied. The number of layers did not influence the relative risk for CSE (RR = 1.3, p = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

Thicker layers of SBU increase the relative risk of identifying a radiolucent layer under restoration and the decision to replace a/composite restoration, irrespective of the substrate. The presence of demineralized dentin did not increase the probability of identifying a radiolucent zone when compared to sound dentin.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The results of this in vitro study suggest that thicker layers of a particular adhesive under resin composite restorations can negatively influence the decision to replace them. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:193-200, 2017).

Restoration materials and secondary caries using an in vitro biofilm model

This in vitro study investigated whether restoration materials and adhesives influence secondary caries formation in gaps using a short-term in vitro biofilm model. Sixty enamel-dentin blocks were restored with 6 different restoration materials with or without adhesives (n = 10 per group) with a gap: 1) Clearfil AP-X composite, 2) Clearfil AP-X composite + SE Bond, 3) Clearfil AP-X composite + ProtectBond, 4) Filtek Silorane composite, 5) Filtek Silorane composite + Silorane System adhesive, or 6) Tytin amalgam. Specimens were subjected to an intermittent 1% sucrose biofilm model for 20 days to create artificial caries lesions. Lesion progression in the enamel-dentin next to the different materials was measured in lesion depth (LD) and mineral loss (ML) using transversal wavelength independent microradiography (T-WIM). A regression analysis was used to compare the LD and ML of the different restoration materials at 4 measurement locations: 1 location at the surface of the enamel, 1 location at the wall of the enamel, and 2 locations at the wall of the dentin. A statistically significant effect of AP-X composite with Protect Bond was found for LD and ML at the WallDentin1 location, leading to less advanced wall lesions. An additional finding was that gap size was also statistically significant at the 2 wall locations in dentin, leading to increasing lesion progression with wider gaps. In conclusion, adhesives can influence wall lesion development in gaps. Protect Bond showed significantly less caries progression compared to bare restoration materials or other adhesives in this short-term in vitro biofilm model.

Radiographic diagnosis of dental restoration misfit: a systematic review

The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review on the use of radiographic methods for the diagnosis of misfit in dental prostheses and restorations. The MEDLINE bibliographic database was searched from 1950 to February 2014 for reports on the radiographic diagnosis of misfits. The search strategy was limited to English-language publications using the following combined MeSH terms in the search strategy: (Dental Restoration OR Dental Prosthesis OR Crown OR Inlays OR Dental Abutments) and (Dental Leakage OR Prosthesis Fitting OR Dental Marginal Adaptation OR Surface Properties) and (Radiography, Dental OR Radiography, Dental, Digital OR Cone-Beam Computed Tomography). Twenty-eight publications were identified and read in full text, and 14 studies fulfilled criteria for inclusion. Information regarding the use of radiographic methods for the diagnosis of misfits in dental prosthesis and restorations, and in which the methodology/results comprised information regarding how the sample was collected/prepared, the method, imaging protocol, presence of a reference test and the outcomes were evaluated. QUADAS criteria was used to rate the studies in high, moderate or low quality. The evidence supporting the use of radiographic methods for the diagnosis of misfits in dental prosthesis and restorations is limited to low-/moderate-quality studies. The well-established intra-oral orthogonal projection is still under investigation and considered the most appropriate method, both when evaluating the relation between dental restoration to tooth and abutment to implant. Studies using digital radiographs have not evaluated the effect of image post-processing, and tomography has not been evaluated.

Comparative radiopacity of six current adhesive systems

BACKGROUND

The radiopacity of contemporary adhesive systems has been mentioned as the indication for replacement of restorations due to misinterpretation of radiographic images.

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the radiopacity of contemporary bonding agents and to compare their radiodensities with those of enamel and dentin.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

To measure the radiopacity, eight specimens were fabricated from Clearfil SE Bond (CF), Xeno V (XE), Adper SE Bond (ASE), Magic Bond (MB), Single Bond 2 (SB), Scotchbond Multipurpose (SM), and gutta-percha (positive control). The optical densities of enamel, dentin, the bonding agents, gutta-percha, and an aluminium (Al) step wedge were obtained from radiographic images using image analysis software.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The radiographic density data were analyzed statistically by analysis of variance and Tukey's test (α =0.05).

RESULTS

Significant differences were found between ASE and all other groups tested and between XE and CF. No statistical difference was observed between the radiodensity of 1 mm of Al and 1 mm of dentin, between 2 mm of Al and enamel, and between 5 mm of Al and gutta-percha. Five of the six adhesive resins had radiopacity values that fell below the value for dentin, whereas the radiopacity of ASE adhesive was greater than that of dentin but below that of enamel.

CONCLUSION

This investigation demonstrates that only ASE presented a radiopacity within the values of dentin and enamel. CF, XE, MB, SB, and SM adhesives are all radiolucent and require alterations to their composition to facilitate their detection by means of radiographic images.

The visibility of secondary caries under bonding agents with two different imaging modalities

This study investigated the visibility of secondary caries lesions associated with two different adhesive systems of composite restorations (Optibond Solo Plus and Clearfil SE Bond) using a conventional dental x-ray film (Kodak D Speed) and a digital system (Digora) based on storage phosphor-plate technology for detection of secondary caries. For imaging techniques and adhesive systems, false positive scores were high. Intraobserver agreements ranged between 0.432 and 0.778, while interobserver agreements for the readings ranged 0.321-0.731 and 0.411-0.701, respectively. No statistical difference was found between the Az (area under curve) values obtained from PSP (photostimulable storage phosphor) and film images with the exception of the second observer's first reading for total etch adhesive system (Optibond Solo Plus) (p=0.0258). Furthermore, no statistical difference was found between both the bonding systems assessed (p>0.05). Adhesive materials should also have enough radiopacity to facilitate diagnosis of secondary caries.