HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 132, No 4, 482-491. © 2001 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by MURRAY, P. E. Articles by SMITH, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by MURRAY, P. E. Articles by SMITH, A. J. Related Collections Restoratives

JADA Continuing Education

Background. Each year, about 90 million new restorations are placed in the United States and 200 million are replaced. Controversy surrounds the pulpal reactions and frequency of bacterial microleakage associated with common restorative materials. The authors investigated and compared pulpal reactions to different types of restorative materials.

Methods. Two hundred seventy-two teeth with standardized rectangular Class V unexposed cavities were restored with resin-based composite bonded to dentin; resin-based composite bonded to enamel; resin-modified glass ionomers, or RMGI; amalgam lined with zinc polycarboxylate, or ZnPC; amalgam lined with calcium hydroxide, or Ca(OH)₂; or zinc oxide– eugenol, or ZnOE. Teeth were extracted for orthodontic reasons between 20 and 381 days later. The authors categorized pulpal responses according to standards set by the Federation Dentaire Internationale and the International Organization for Standardization. Bacteria were detected using Brown-Brenn–stained sections. Pulpal responses were evaluated using histomorphometric analysis and analysis of variance statistics.

Results. The results showed that RMGI was the best material for preventing bacterial microleakage, and resin-based composite bonded to enamel was the worst. In regard to minimizing pulpal inflammatory activity, ZnOE was the best material and resin-based composite bonded to enamel was the worst. In terms of maximizing odontoblast survival beneath deep cavity preparations, Ca(OH)₂, was the best material and RMGI was the worst.

Conclusions. The results show that bacterial microleakage, pulpal injury and repair responses varied widely with different restorative materials.

Clinical Implications. The authors recommend that RMGI be used to restore teeth with cavities that are shallow to moderate in depth, with the floor of deep cavities being lined with Ca(OH)₂ before the teeth are restored with RMGI.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J.J. Mao, W.V. Giannobile, J.A. Helms, S.J. Hollister, P.H. Krebsbach, M.T. Longaker, and S. Shi Craniofacial tissue engineering by stem cells. J. Dent. Res., November 1, 2006; 85(11): 966 - 979. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Goldberg and A. J. Smith CELLS AND EXTRACELLULAR MATRICES OF DENTIN AND PULP: A BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR REPAIR AND TISSUE ENGINEERING Crit. Rev. Oral. Biol. Med., January 1, 2004; 15(1): 13 - 27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. E. Murray, L. J. Windsor, T. W. Smyth, A. A. Hafez, and C. F. Cox ANALYSIS OF PULPAL REACTIONS TO RESTORATIVE PROCEDURES, MATERIALS, PULP CAPPING, AND FUTURE THERAPIES Crit. Rev. Oral. Biol. Med., November 1, 2002; 13(6): 509 - 520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]