Inhibition of Demineralization at Restoration Margins of Z100 and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill in Dentin and Enamel

Recurrent caries is still considered the main reason restorations need to be replaced. There are different materials available now that promise to reduce the possibility of recurrent caries by releasing fluoride and inhibiting restoration marginal caries. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the demineralization inhibition potential of a non-fluoride-releasing resin (Z100^TM 3M, St. Paul, MN, USA) and a glass containing resin-based composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar/Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein), which contains fluoride. Class V preparations were placed on 22 premolars; the gingival margin was below the cementoenamel junction and the occlusal margin was placed above the cemento-enamel junction. Ten teeth were randomly selected to be restored with Z100 while the other 10 were restored with Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill. Both groups were restored following manufacturer's instructions. All teeth had an acid resistant varnish placed within one millimeter of the preparation margins. Both groups were placed in artificial caries challenge solution (pH 4.4). At the end of the 4 days; 100 µm buccolingual sections were obtained for each tooth; these were photographed under polarized light microscopy and the demineralized areas adjacent to the restorations were measured and quantified. The mean (±S.D.) area (µm²) of demineralization from the occlusal margin (enamel) and dentin margin were: Z100 2781.889 ± 1045.213; 3960.455 ± 705.964 and for Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill 1541.545 ± 1167.027; 3027.600 ± 512.078. Student's t-test indicated that there was significantly less enamel and dentin demineralization adjacent to Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill compared to Z100; there was significantly less demineralization in enamel compared to dentin in both Tetric EvoCeral Bulk Fill and Z100. Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill performed better inhibiting demineralization at restoration margins when compared to Z100 and provided better demineralization inhibition in enamel than cementum/dentin.