Restorative
Corey Acosta, DDS
Resident
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
UTHSC
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Jordan Dunn, DDS
Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Community Health, College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee Health Science Center
Jennifer Fernandez, DDS, MS, MDS
University of Tennessee Health Science Center
Franklin Garcia-Godoy, DDS, MS, PhD, PhD
University of Tennessee Health Science Center
Brian Morrow, MS
University of Tennessee Health Science Center
Martha H. Wells, DDS, MS
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
Volk Volk Vinall, DDS
Program Director
UTHSC Pediatric Dentistry
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Purpose: The purpose was to investigate and compare microleakage of silver-modified atraumatic restorations (SMART)compared to traditional glass ionomer restorations when restoring with high viscosity glass ionomer compared to a newalternative, SMART Advantage™ glass ionomer (SAGI).
Methods: Sixty extracted permanent teeth were randomlyallocated to two SMART groups and two control groups (n=15 per group) for a total of four groups. Selectivecaries removal was achieved for all teeth. Test specimens were treated with 38% silver diamine fluoride (SDF) and restored with Fuji IX© glass ionomer (n=15) or SAGI (n=15). In the control groups, specimens were restored withSAGI without SDF or, Fuji IX© without SDF. Restored teeth were placed in Dulbecco’s Phosphate BufferedSaline solution at 37 degrees Celsius for 24 hours. Teeth were thermocycled between five and 55 degreesCelsius for 1,000 cycles, stained with two percent basic fuchsin, sectioned, and visually inspected formicroleakage utilizing stereomicroscopy on a four-point scale. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks, Dunn's Method (P < 0.05).
Results: Microleakage between the two SMARTrestoration groups was insignificant. However, both glass ionomer restorations demonstrated significantly lessmicroleakage when treated with 38% SDF compared to when treated by SAGI alone. There was no statisticalsignificance between the Fuji IX© control group and the two SMART restoration groups. The SAGI control group demonstrated significantly more microleakage when compared to the Fuji IX© control group.
Conclusions: In this invitro investigation, SMART restorations resulted in significantly less microleakage compared to SAGI alone, butthe microleakage was similar when compared to Fuji IX© alone.