These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of pulp responses to resin composites.
    Author: Murray PE, Windsor LJ, Hafez AA, Stevenson RG, Cox CF.
    Journal: Oper Dent; 2003; 28(3):242-50. PubMed ID: 12760695.
    Abstract:
    Diverse reports have described how various types of adhesive systems cause disastrous pulp necrosis, chronic severe inflammation or failure to stimulate any pulp reactions. This article reports on the effects of five common adhesive systems and how they compare in terms of pulp injury as measured by odontoblast survival or dentin regeneration and reactionary dentin formation. One hundred and thirty Class V pulp, non-exposed cavities were prepared in non-human primate teeth and were restored with five different adhesive systems. After a period of time between 3 and 172 days, the teeth were extracted, fixed, processed and examined histomorphometrically. Bacterial microleakage was detected with McKays stain and inflammation was categorized according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) criteria. The number of odontoblasts and the area of reactionary dentin were measured. Pulp reactions of all adhesive systems were generally minimal, although some systems permitted bacterial microleakage in 33% of restorations, and some other systems were associated with pulp inflammation in 22% of restorations. These observations suggest that adhesive systems provide acceptable biocompatibility, however, there is strong potential for improvement.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]