This preprint is under consideration at Scientific Reports. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research Article
Daniela Rios
Universidade de São Paulo
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
This in-vitro study evaluated the resistance of S-PRG-based-composites against erosive wear and their protective effect on enamel adjacent to restoration. Bovine-enamel-blocks were randomized into 12 groups (n=10/group), according to the factors material and type of wear (erosion-e or erosion+abrasion-a): S-PRG-based-composite-Beautifil II®(SPRGe/SPRGa); S-PRG-based bulk-fill-Beautifil Bulk Restorative®(SPRGBFe/SPRGBFa); composite-Filtek Z350 XT®(RCe/RCa); bulk-fill-composite-Filtek Bulk Fill®(BFe and BFa); glass-ionomer cement-EQUIA Forte®(GICe/GICa); resin-modified glass-ionomer cement-Riva®(RMGICe/RMGICa). Standardized cavities were prepared in specimens and restored. Initial profile was performed on the material and on the adjacent enamel at distances of 100/200/300/600 and 700μm. Specimens were immersed in 0.5%citric-acid (2min-6x/day-during 5days), and abrasive challenge was performed using a toothbrushing-machine (1min-after erosive challenge). Final profile was obtained following initial. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey-test (α<0.05). On erosion, the GICe and RMGICe groups presented greater loss of material compared to other groups; up to 300μm away from the restoration, GICe and SPRGBFe were able to promote less enamel loss than composite groups. For erosion+abrasion S-PRG-based groups showed intermediate material wear compared to GICs (higher wear) and composites (less wear); there was no difference of enamel wear adjacent to restorations among groups. It is concluded that S-PRG-based-composites are a good alternative for restorative treatment of erosive tooth wear.
Clinical Significance: S-PRG-based composite restorations are able to diminish surrounding enamel erosive wear, similarly to glass ionomer cement, with the advantage of being more resistant to erosive challenge. Therefore, this material is a potential option to restore advanced erosion lesions in patients with etiological factors still present.
Keywords
Dental Erosion, Tooth Wear, Dental Materials, S-PRG fillers, Giomer
No competing interests reported.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 01 Jun, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Jun, 2021
Reviews received
Received 29 May, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 29 May, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 May, 2021
Editor assigned
On 28 May, 2021
Editor invited
On 28 May, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 27 May, 2021
First submitted
On 21 May, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
This preprint is under consideration at Scientific Reports. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Daniela Rios
Universidade de São Paulo
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 01 Jun, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Jun, 2021
Reviews received
Received 29 May, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 29 May, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 May, 2021
Editor assigned
On 28 May, 2021
Editor invited
On 28 May, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 27 May, 2021
First submitted
On 21 May, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
This in-vitro study evaluated the resistance of S-PRG-based-composites against erosive wear and their protective effect on enamel adjacent to restoration. Bovine-enamel-blocks were randomized into 12 groups (n=10/group), according to the factors material and type of wear (erosion-e or erosion+abrasion-a): S-PRG-based-composite-Beautifil II®(SPRGe/SPRGa); S-PRG-based bulk-fill-Beautifil Bulk Restorative®(SPRGBFe/SPRGBFa); composite-Filtek Z350 XT®(RCe/RCa); bulk-fill-composite-Filtek Bulk Fill®(BFe and BFa); glass-ionomer cement-EQUIA Forte®(GICe/GICa); resin-modified glass-ionomer cement-Riva®(RMGICe/RMGICa). Standardized cavities were prepared in specimens and restored. Initial profile was performed on the material and on the adjacent enamel at distances of 100/200/300/600 and 700μm. Specimens were immersed in 0.5%citric-acid (2min-6x/day-during 5days), and abrasive challenge was performed using a toothbrushing-machine (1min-after erosive challenge). Final profile was obtained following initial. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey-test (α<0.05). On erosion, the GICe and RMGICe groups presented greater loss of material compared to other groups; up to 300μm away from the restoration, GICe and SPRGBFe were able to promote less enamel loss than composite groups. For erosion+abrasion S-PRG-based groups showed intermediate material wear compared to GICs (higher wear) and composites (less wear); there was no difference of enamel wear adjacent to restorations among groups. It is concluded that S-PRG-based-composites are a good alternative for restorative treatment of erosive tooth wear.
Clinical Significance: S-PRG-based composite restorations are able to diminish surrounding enamel erosive wear, similarly to glass ionomer cement, with the advantage of being more resistant to erosive challenge. Therefore, this material is a potential option to restore advanced erosion lesions in patients with etiological factors still present.
No competing interests reported.
Loading...