Citation Information :
Habashneh RA, Qabaha M, Khader Y, Ghassib I, Atmeh A. Gingival Health Around Cervical Carious Lesions Restored with Calcium Silicate-based Cement (Biodentine™) Compared with Glass-ionomer Cement: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (6):702-706.
Aim: The study aims to assess the gingival health around cervical lesions restored with calcium silicate-based cement (Biodentine™) compared to treatment with glass-ionomer cement (GIC).
Materials and methods: A total of 28 healthy subjects with carious lesions on the cervical third of the buccal surfaces of posterior teeth (class V—Black's classification) have participated and were distributed over two equal groups. The participants in each group received one type of the tested cements: Biodentine™ or GIC. The oral hygiene and the gingival health of the restored teeth were evaluated clinically at 1, 3, and 6 month intervals.
Results: Comparing clinical parameters of gingival and periodontal tissues adjacent to cervical restorations indicated significant differences. Plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) were higher in the Biodentine™ group at 1, 3, and 6 months of evaluation with a significant difference (p < 0.05), a rise in pocket depth has been noticed at 3 and 6 months (p < 005). Gingival recession (GR) did not show any difference between groups (p > 0.05). Moreover, bleeding on probing (BOP) values were higher for Biodentine™ restorations compared with GIC with a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Cervical restorations of Biodentine™ were associated with more plaque accumulation with a higher degree of gingival inflammation in comparison with GIC.
Schätzle M, Lang NP, et al. The influence of margins of restorations on the periodontal tissues over 26 years. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28(1):57–64.
Padbury Jr A, Eber R, et al. Interactions between the gingiva and the margin of restorations. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30(5):379–385.
Ferrari M, Koken S, et al. Influence of cervical margin relocation (CMR) on periodontal health: 12 month results of a controlled trial. J Dent 2018;69:70–76. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.008.
Gurgel C, Solera NG, et al. Evaluation of the periodontal conditions of teeth with restored and non-restored non-carious cervical lesions. Quintessence Int 2016;47(10):825–831. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a36885.
Nassar U, Meyer AE, et al. The effect of restorative and prosthetic materials on dental plaque. Periodontol 2000 1995;8(1):114–124.
Wang J, Liu Z. Influence of amalgam on the growth of mutans streptococcus: an in vivo study. Chin J Dent Res 2000;3(2):33–37.
Larato DC. Influence of a composite resin restoration on the gingiva. J Prosthet Dent 1972;28(4):402–404.
Santos VR, Lucchesi JA, et al. Effects of glass ionomer and microfilled composite subgingival restorations on periodontal tissue and subgingival biofilm: a 6 month evaluation. J Periodontol 2007;78(8):1522–1528. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2007.070032.
Willershausen B, Köttgen C, et al. The influence of restorative materials on marginal gingiva. Eur J Med Res 2001;6(10):433–439.
Atmeh AR, Chong EZ, et al. Calcium silicate cement-induced remineralisation of totally demineralised dentine in comparison with glass ionomer cement: tetracycline labelling and two-photon fluorescence microscopy. J Microsc 2015;257(2):151.160. DOI: 10.1111/jmi.12197.
Hashem DF, Foxton R, et al. The physical characteristics of resin composite.calcium silicate interface as part of a layered/laminate adhesive restoration. Dent Mater 2014;30(3):343.349. DOI: 10.1016/j. dental.2013.12.010.
Camilleri J, Montesin FE, et al. The constitution of mineral trioxide aggregate. Dent Mater 2005;21(4):297.303. DOI: 10.1016/j. dental.2004.05.010.
Zhou HM, Shen Y, et al. In vitro cytotoxicity evaluation of a novel root repair material. J Endod 2013;39(4):478.483. DOI: 10.1016/j. joen.2012.11.026.
Zanini M, Sautier JM, et al. Biodentine induces immortalized murine pulp cell differentiation into odontoblast-like cells and stimulates biomineralization. J Endod 2012;38(9):1220.1226. DOI: 10.1016/j. joen.2012.04.018.
Koubi G, Colon P, et al. Clinical evaluation of the performance and safety of a new dentine substitute, Biodentine, in the restoration of posterior teeth.a prospective study. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(1):243.249. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0701-9.
Broadbent JM, Williams KB, et al. Dental restorations: a risk factor for periodontal attachment loss? J Clin Periodontol 2006;33(11):803.810. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.00988.x.
Nicholson JW. Chemistry of glass-ionomer cements: a review. Biomaterials 1998;19:485.494.
Renggli HH, Regolati B. Gingival inflammation and plaque accumulation by well-adapted supragingival and subgingival proximal restorations. Helv Odontol Acta 1972;16(2):99–101.
Leon AR. Amalgam restorations and periodontal disease. Br Dent J 1976;140(11):377.
Valderhaugw J, Birkeland JM. Periodontal conditions in patients 5 years following insertion of fixed prostheses: pocket depth and loss of attachment. J Oral Rehabil 1976;3(3):237–243.
Valderhaug J. Periodontal conditions and carious lesions following the insertion of fixed prostheses: a 10 year follow-up study. Int Dent J 1980;30(4):296–304.
Reitemeier B, Hänsel K, et al. Effect of posterior crown margin placement on gingival health. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(2):167–172.