Are S-PRG composites able to resist against erosive and abrasive challenges and protect surrounding enamel in situ?

J Dent

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, Bauru/SP - PO Box 73, 17012-101, Brazil. Electronic address:

Published: March 2024

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study assessed how well S-PRG composites and other restorative materials resist erosion and abrasion, and their ability to protect surrounding enamel.
  • Six types of materials were tested on bovine enamel blocks, with findings indicating that Riva Light Cure had the highest wear, while S-PRG composites performed similarly to other resin composites.
  • Ultimately, while S-PRG composites showed good resistance to wear, they did not effectively protect the enamel next to the restorations.

Article Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Materials And Methods: 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).

Results: 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).

Conclusion: SPRG based composites showed resistance against erosive and abrasive challenges but were not able to protect enamel adjacent to the restorations.

Clinical Significance: 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104874DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

erosive abrasive
12
abrasive challenges
12
enamel blocks
12
material wear
12
enamel
11
s-prg composites
8
challenges protect
8
enamel adjacent
8
equia forte
8
riva light
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!