HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Yip, H.K. Articles by Wong, W.H.S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yip, H.K. Articles by Wong, W.H.S.

Protection Offered by Root-surface Restorative Materials against Biofilm Challenge

¹ Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Room 1A23, Prince Philip Dental Hosptial, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong SAR, China;
² Oral Biomedical Engineering, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China; and
³ Division of Biostatistics, Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam;

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Mineral density (log Ca:P) of the restored root surface after 3 weeks’ culture with oral biofilm. The log Ca:P was measured by energy-dispersive spectroscopy from the root surface to 200 µm in depth (total of 10 x 3 x 5 = 150 spot analyses for each restorative material tested and 150 internal controls for each group, giving 300 analyses). Glass-ionomer cement was the only material to show an increase in log Ca:P at the root surface adjacent to the restoration (P < 0.01). The log Ca:P tailed off at distances farther from the interface. Such results were not found at the enamel surface.

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. FTIR spectra of the restorative materials used.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Log FTIR intensity ratios of amide I to HPO42– showing the mineral content of restored enamel and restored root surface with 3 different restorative materials (scan area: 100 x 100 µm) (n = 5 for each restorative tested). The log [amide I:HPO42–] for glass-ionomer cement was lower than that of the other 2 materials (P = 0.04). The statistical analysis of the restorative materials (v1) was: Type III sum of squares = 0.90, df = 2, mean square = 0.45, F = 4.19, and sig. = 0.03. The statistical analysis of sound and demineralized tissue (v2) was: Type III sum of squares = 0.51, df = 1, mean square = 0.51, F = 4.69, and sig. = 0.03. The statistical analysis of v1*v3 was: Type III sum of squares = 0.07, df = 2, mean square = 0.03, F = 0.32, and sig. = 0.73.