Restorative pulpal and repair responses

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Restorative pulpal and repair responses. / Murray, Peter; About, I; Lumley, Philip; Franquin, J-C; Remusat, M; Smith, Anthony.

In: Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 132, No. 4, 01.01.2001, p. 482-491.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Murray, Peter ; About, I ; Lumley, Philip ; Franquin, J-C ; Remusat, M ; Smith, Anthony. / Restorative pulpal and repair responses. In: Journal of the American Dental Association. 2001 ; Vol. 132, No. 4. pp. 482-491.

Bibtex

@article{fbdd50ff3d9442d2881649103c55136a,
title = "Restorative pulpal and repair responses",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Peter Murray and I About and Philip Lumley and J-C Franquin and M Remusat and Anthony Smith",
year = "2001",
month = jan,
day = "1",
doi = "10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0211",
language = "English",
volume = "132",
pages = "482--491",
journal = "Journal of the American Dental Association",
issn = "0002-8177",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Restorative pulpal and repair responses

AU - Murray, Peter

AU - About, I

AU - Lumley, Philip

AU - Franquin, J-C

AU - Remusat, M

AU - Smith, Anthony

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0211

DO - 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0211

M3 - Article

C2 - 11315379

VL - 132

SP - 482

EP - 491

JO - Journal of the American Dental Association

JF - Journal of the American Dental Association

SN - 0002-8177

IS - 4

ER -