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: Clinical and microbiological effects of different restorative materials on the periodontal tissues adjacent to subgingival class V restorations.
    Author: Paolantonio M, D'ercole S, Perinetti G, Tripodi D, Catamo G, Serra E, Bruè C, Piccolomini R.
    Journal: J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Mar; 31(3):200-7. PubMed ID: 15016024.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The relationship between subgingival dental restorations and periodontal health has been thoroughly investigated for many years. However, longitudinal data on the subgingival microflora features after the placement of well-finished subgingival restorations are still lacking. Therefore, this study compares the short-term clinical and microbiological features occurring in the gingiva after the completion of different subgingival restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixteen systemically healthy subjects, 10 males and six females (ages: 31.7-45.8 years; mean age 39.3+/-5.1 years), who were non-smokers and were positive for the presence of three cervical abrasion/erosion defects to be restored in three different adjacent teeth were enrolled in this study. The cervical abrasion/erosion defects were each restored by using one of three different materials: amalgam, glass ionomer cement, or composite resin. Immediately before class V cavity preparations and restorations (baseline), clinical monitoring and subgingival plaque sampling were performed in the mid-buccal aspect of each experimental restored tooth and in one adjacent sound, non-treated, control tooth. These procedures were repeated every 4 months over the following 1 year. RESULTS: Throughout the study, the clinical parameters recorded did not change significantly in any of the experimental groups, and no differences were detected among them at each clinical session. Over this time, no significant changes in the composition of the subgingival microflora were observed in amalgam, glass ionomer cement, and control groups. Conversely, in the composite resin group, there was a significant increase in the total bacterial counts, and a significant (p<0.05) decrease in Gram-positive, aerobic bacteria, which was associated with a significant (p<0.05) increase in the Gram-negative, anaerobic microbiota. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 1-year observation period, amalgam, glass ionomer cement, and composite resin subgingival restorations do not significantly affect the clinical parameters recorded. However, composite resin restorations may have some negative effects on the quantity and quality of subgingival plaque.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]