Inhibition of Caries around Restoration by Ion-Releasing Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Optical Coherence Tomography and Micro-Computed Tomography Evaluation

Abstract

The objective of this study was firstly to assess the demineralization inhibitory effect of ion-releasing restorations in enamel adjacent to restoration using a biofilm caries model and secondly to compare the effect to that in a chemical caries model. Fifty-six bovine incisors were filled with either Surefil one (SuO), Cention N (CN) (both ion-releasing materials), Ketac-Molar (GIC) or Powerfill resin composite (RC). The restored teeth were then randomly divided into 2 groups according to the used caries model (biofilm or chemical caries model). The micro-computed tomography (MicroCt) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) outcome measures used to evaluate demineralization inhibition effects were lesion depth, LD and increase in OCT integrated reflectivity, ΔIR, at five different depths. It was observed that all outcome measures of CN were statistically the same as those of GIC and conversely with those of RC. This was also the case for SuO except for LD, which was statistically the same as RC. When comparing the two caries models, LD of the biofilm model was statistically deeper (p < 0.05) than the chemical model for all four materials. In conclusion, CN and SuO have similar demineralization inhibitory effects as GIC, and the biofilm caries model is more discriminatory in differentiating demineralization inhibitory effects of ion-releasing restorative material.

Auto-Segmentation and Quantification of Non-Cavitated Enamel Caries Imaged with Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography

“…The lesion depth, integrated reflectivity, and attenuation coefficients are among the quantitative outcome measures that are often utilized [18][19][20][21]27,28]. The relative changes of these outcome measures for enamel and dentin before and after an intervention, be it demineralization or remineralization, can be used to assess the effect of that intervention [29,30]. However, variations in these quantitative results between different studies have been found, and this has been attributed to the different OCT systems used, sample preparation methods, and the arbitrary nature of some of the outcome measures [31].…”