The evidence suggests that RM-GIC is associated with a higher reduction of demineralization in adjacent hard tooth tissue than composite resin without fluoride .
No difference was found when RM-GIC was compared with fluoride-containing composite resin .
RM-GIC showed efficacy in reducing demineralization .
UNLABELLED The purpose of this systematic review was to quantitatively find out whether resin-modified glass-ionomers ( RM-GIC ) , in comparison to fluoride-containing composite resin and composite resin without fluoride , are associated with a more effective reduction of demineralization in hard tooth tissues under caries challenge .
Inhibition of demineralization adjacent to tooth-colored restorations in primary teeth after 2 in vitro challenges.
PURPOSE As clinical diagnosis of secondary caries is the most common reason for restoration replacement , fluoride-releasing restorative material s have been developed to address this problem . The purpose s of this study were to verify demineralization inhibition produced by 5 restorative material s su bmi tted to two methods of in vitro cariogenic challenge and verify whether these methods influence material behavior by means of polarized light microscopy and microhardness . METHODS Class V cavities were prepared on buccal surfaces of 100 extracted primary molars and r and omly restored with 1 of the 4 fluoride-releasing material s , Fuji IX , Vitremer , Dyract , Tetric Ceram , and Filtek Z250 as control material ( N=10 ) . Specimens were su bmi tted to in vitro caries induction by two different methods , acid gel immersion , and pH cycling . Teeth su bmi tted to gel were then sectioned and prepared for polarized light microscopy in water , while teeth cycled were prepared for microhardness evaluation . RESULTS Polarized light microscopy : Means of demineralization areas ( microm(2 ) ) differed significantly , depending on the restorative material . Tukey 's test revealed the smallest demineralization areas adjacent to Fuji IX and Vitremer restorations , with no difference between them ( P>.05 ) . The greatest demineralization area mean values were verified using Dyract and Filtek Z250 , without differences between them ( P>.05 ) . Microhardness : Glass ionomer cements ( GICs ) performed better on the area of great cariogenic challenge , closer to the surface , than other material s indicating minor mineral loss during pH cycling . The compomer Dyract presented similar performance to GICs and composite resin Tetric Ceram , but it was better than Filtek Z250 . CONCLUSION The experimental model of caries lesion induction may influence material performance . GICs , however , are superior in preventing in vitro demineralization independently of the method
The evidence suggests that RM-GIC is associated with a higher reduction of demineralization in adjacent hard tooth tissue than composite resin without fluoride .
No difference was found when RM-GIC was compared with fluoride-containing composite resin .
RM-GIC showed efficacy in reducing demineralization .
UNLABELLED The purpose of this systematic review was to quantitatively find out whether resin-modified glass-ionomers ( RM-GIC ) , in comparison to fluoride-containing composite resin and composite resin without fluoride , are associated with a more effective reduction of demineralization in hard tooth tissues under caries challenge .