Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Sep 16;6(3):47.
doi: 10.3390/dj6030047.

Detection of Caries Around Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer and Compomer Restorations Using Four Different Modalities In Vitro

Tamara Abrams  1 , Stephen Abrams  2 , Koneswaran Sivagurunathan  3 , Veronika Moravan  4 , Warren Hellen  5 , Gary Elman  6 , Bennett Amaechi  7 , Andreas Mandelis  8
Affiliations

Detection of Caries Around Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer and Compomer Restorations Using Four Different Modalities In Vitro

Tamara Abrams et al. Dent J (Basel). .

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of visual examination (International Caries Detection and Assessment System-ICDAS II), light-emitting diodes (LED) fluorescence (SPECTRA), laser fluorescence (DIAGNODent, DD), photothermal radiometry and modulated luminescence (PTR-LUM, The Canary System, CS) to detect natural decay beneath resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) and compomer restorations in vitro. Twenty-seven extracted human molars and premolars, consisting of 2 control teeth, 10 visually healthy/sound and 15 teeth with natural cavitated lesions, were selected. For the carious teeth, caries was removed leaving some carious tissue on one wall of the preparation. For the sound teeth, 3 mm deep cavity preparations were made. All cavities were restored with RMGIC or compomer restorative materials. Sixty-eight sites (4 sites on sound unrestored teeth, 21 sound sites and 43 carious sites with restorations) were selected. CS and DD triplicate measurements were done at 2, 1.5, 0.5, and 0 mm away from the margin of the restoration (MOR). SPECTRA images were taken, and two dentists provided ICDAS II scoring for the restored surfaces. The SPECTRA data and images were inconclusive due to signal interference from the restorations. Visual examinations of the restored tooth surfaces were able to identify 5 of the 15 teeth with caries. In these situations, the teeth were ranked as having ICDAS II 1 or 2 rankings, but they could not identify the location of the caries or depth of the lesion. CS and DD were able to differentiate between sound and carious tissue at the MOR, but larger variation in measurement, and poorer accuracy, was observed for DD. It was concluded that the CS has the potential to detect secondary caries around RMGIC and compomer restorations more accurately than the other modalities used in this study.

Keywords: DIAGNODent; ICDAS II; PTR-LUM; SPECTRA; caries; caries around restoration margins; caries detection; compomer; resin-modified glass ionomer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors received any compensation for work on this study and preparation of this paper. T Abrams, and K Sivagurunathan are employees of Quantum Dental Technologies, the manufacturer of The Canary System. S Abrams is President & Co-Founder of Quantum Dental Technologies and did not receive any compensation for this study. V. Moravan provided statistical analysis for this study. A. Mandelis is CTO and Co-Founder of Quantum Dental Technologies and did not receive any compensation for this study. WMP Hellen is a shareholder in Quantum Dental Technologies. GI Elman and BT Amaechi did not receive any compensation nor do they have any conflicts to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Caries system detection scales for devices used in this study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Examination of caries free margin of a Dyract eXtra restoration.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Detection of caries beneath Compoglass F restoration margin.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kopperud S.E., Tveit A.B., Gaarden T., Sandvik L., Espelid I. Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2012;120:539–548. doi: 10.1111/eos.12004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hickel R., Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J. Adhes. Dent. 2001;3:45–64. - PubMed
    1. Hara A.T., Magalhaes C.S., Serra M.C., Rodrigues A.L., Jr. Cariostatic effect of fluoride-containing restorative systems associated with dentifrices on root dentin. J. Dent. 2002;30:205–212. doi: 10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00017-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Serra M.C., Cury J.A. The in vitro effect of glass-ionomer cement restoration on enamel subjected to a demineralization and remineralization model. Quintessence Int. 1992;23:143–147. - PubMed
    1. Tedesco T.K., Bonifacio C.C., Calvo A.F., Gimenez T., Braga M.M., Raggio D.P. Caries lesion prevention and arrestment in approximal surfaces in contact with glass ionomer cement restorations—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2016;26:161–172. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12174. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources