Ability of different restorative materials to prevent in situ secondary caries: analysis by polarized...

Secondary caries is the main cause of direct restoration replacement. The purpose of this study was to analyze enamel adjacent to different restorative materials after in situ cariogenic challenge using polarized-light microscopy (PLM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDS). Twelve volunteers, with a low level of dental plaque, a low level of mutans streptococci, and normal salivary flow, wore removable palatal acrylic appliances containing enamel specimens restored with Z250 composite, Freedom composite, Fuji IX glass-ionomer cement, or Vitremer resin-modified glass-ionomer for 14 days. Volunteers dripped one drop of 20% sucrose solution (n = 10) or distilled water (control group) onto each specimen 8 times per day. Specimens were removed from the appliances and submitted to PLM for examination of the lesion area (in mm(2)), followed by dehydration, gold-sputtering, and submission to SEM and EDS. The calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) contents were evaluated in weight per cent (%wt). Differences were found between Z250 and Vitremer, and between Z250 and FujiIX, when analyzed using PLM. Energy-dispersive X-ray analysis results showed differences between the studied materials regarding Ca %wt. In conclusion, enamel adjacent to glass-ionomer cement presented a higher Ca %wt, but this material did not completely prevent enamel secondary caries under in situ cariogenic challenge.