Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Maximiliano Sergio Cenci
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Doctoral Thesis |
| Press: | Campinas, SP. |
| Institution: | Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP). Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba |
| Defense date: | 2008-02-28 |
| Examining board members: |
Jaime Aparecido Cury;
Alessandro Dourado Loguercio;
Flavio Fernando Demarco;
Luis Alexandre Maffei Sartini Paulillo;
Marinês Nobre dos Santos
|
| Advisor: | Jaime Aparecido Cury |
| Abstract | |
Secondary caries is considered the main cause for restorations replacement, which has been attributed to microleakage throughout restorations interface. However, besides the fact that there is no clear association between microleakage and these lesions, this association could not be relevant if fluoride (F) is present at the restoration interface. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of microleakage on caries around enamel-dentine restoration under F presence, either individually from dental materials or dentifrice, or in combination. For this an in situ study involving a double-blinded, crossover design was carried out in 4 phases of 14 days each. The factors under evaluation were restorative materials at 2 levels: CR - composite resin, and GI - resin-modified glass ionomer cement; marginal leakage status at 2 levels: L- - without leakage induction, and L+ - with leakage induction; and fluoride treatment at 2 levels: NF ¿ non-fluoride dentifrice (placebo), and FD - fluoride dentifrice. Therefore, experimental subsets were obtained from the association of these factors, which were randomly assigned to the volunteers (n = 14). Through all the experimental phases, biofilm accumulation was allowed on the restored slabs and a high cariogenic challenge was provided by exposing the biofilms to a 20% sucrose solution 10x/ day extra-orally. The volunteers used NF or FD 3x/day, depending on the experimental phase. No differences were found between L+ or L- restorations for all the variables studied (p>0.05). Higher demineralisation in both enamel and dentine around RC restorations than around GI restorations was observed under NF dentifrice use (p<0.05). F concentration was higher in the fluid of biofilm exposed to FD or formed onto GI restoration (p<0.05). It can be concluded from the results that microleakage has no influence on secondary caries in the presence or absence of F from dentifrices or restorative materials, and that the presence of F in the biofilm provided by GI and/or FD is important to inhibit demineralisation adjacent to restorations. (AU) | |