The effects of different restorative materials on periodontopathogens in combined restorative-periodontal treatment

Abstract

Objective The aim of the study was to evaluate the association between subgingival restorations and the target periodontopathogenic bacteria (Pg, Td and Pi) in subgingival biofilm during one year after combined restorative-periodontal treatment.Material and Methods Seventeen systemically healthy subjects, who were positive for the presence of three cervical lesions associated with gingival recessions in three different adjacent teeth, were included in the study. A total of 51 combined defects were treated with connective tissue graft plus a nanofilled composite resin (NCR+CTG), a resin-modified glass ionemer cement (RMGI+CTG) and a fluoride-releasing resin material with pre-reacted glass (PRG), called giomer (Giomer+CTG). Periodontal clinical measurements and subgingival plaque samples were obtained from all combined defects at baseline and at 6 and 12 months after the surgery. The number of bacteria were evaluated by the real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) method.Results No statistically significant difference in the amount of DNA copies of Pg, Td and Pi was observed in any of the groups at any time points (p>0.05). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in the amount of DNA copies of the bacteria at baseline and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, regardless of treatment group (p>0.05).Conclusion This study suggests that subgingivally placed NCR, RMGI and giomer restorations can show similar effects on periodontopathogenic bacteria in the treatment of gingival recessions that are associated with noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

Effect of collagen sponge and flowable resin composite on pain management after free gingival graft harvesting: A randomized controlled clinical trial

“…Moreover, in a recent clinical study, the influence of different subgingival restorations on periodontal health was evaluated via combined restorative‐periodontal treatment. The results indicated that irrespective of the type of restorative materials, the subgingival restorations did not produce significant changes in clinical and microbiological examinations 12 months after surgery [43].…”

Evaluation of biocompatibility of veneered Bio HPP and veneered lithium disilicate crowns in anterior zone (Randomized controlled clinical trial)

“…Several studies showed varying degree of bacterial colonization when they compared different restorative material to each other or teeth. Furthermore, studies stated that the biological outcome was analyzed by assessing probing depth and plaque level [5].…”