Premium
Effects of Glass Ionomer and Microfilled Composite Subgingival Restorations on Periodontal Tissue and Subgingival Biofilm: A 6‐Month Evaluation
Author(s) -
Santos Vanessa Renata,
Lucchesi Juliana Antico,
Cortelli Sheila Cavalca,
Amaral Cristiane Mariote,
Feres Magda,
Duarte Poliana Mendes
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.2007.070032
Subject(s) - fusobacterium nucleatum , dentistry , glass ionomer cement , medicine , bleeding on probing , fusobacterium , periodontitis , orthodontics , bacteroides , porphyromonas gingivalis , biology , bacteria , genetics
Background: This 6‐month study evaluated the effects of resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement (RMGI) and microfilled composite (MC) subgingival restorations on periodontal tissues and subgingival biofilm. Methods: Fifty‐four periodontally healthy patients were assigned as follows: group 1 (N = 18), root exposure (RE) without non‐carious cervical lesions (NCCL) treated with coronally positioned flap (CPF); group 2 (N = 18), RE with NCCL treated RMGI restorations plus CPF; group 3 (N = 18), RE with NCCL treated with MC restorations plus CPF. Probing depth (PD), visible local plaque score (PL), and local bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed at baseline and 6 months after surgeries. Restored and non‐restored root recoverage (RR) was assessed at 6 months. Each experimental tooth was subgingivally sampled (baseline and 6 months) and analyzed by checkerboard DNA‐DNA hybridization. Results: Clinical results showed no significant differences among the groups regarding PL, BOP, and PD at baseline and 6 months. The RR means were similar among the groups at 6 months. Intragroup analyses revealed that the proportions of 10 periodontopathogens decreased at 6 months for the control group. For the RMGI group, there was a significant decrease in the proportions of nine periodontopathogens. For the MC group, there was a significant increase in the proportions of Fusobacterium nucleatum polymorphum and Gemella morbillorum and a decrease in five periodontopathogens. Intergroup analyses showed an increase in the proportion of F. nucleatum polymorphum for the MC group. Conclusions: In a 6‐month evaluation, well‐finished RMGI or MC subgingival restorations did not negatively affect periodontal health. Furthermore, RMGI seems to exert more positive effects on the subgingival biofilm composition than MC.