Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Human pulp response to conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements applied in very deep cavities

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study assessed the human pulp response after adhesive restoration of cavities by indirect pulp capping with a conventional or a resin-modified glass ionomer cement.

Materials and methods

Deep cavities prepared in 26 human premolars were lined with Riva Light Cure (Riva LC), Riva Self Cure (Riva SC), or Dycal, and then restored with composite resin. Four teeth were used as intact control. After time intervals of 7 or 30 days, the teeth were extracted, processed for histological evaluation of the pulp, and the remaining dentin thickness (RDT) between the cavity floor and the pulp was measured.

Results

At 7 days, a slight pulp inflammation associated with discrete tissue disorganization was observed in most of t the teeth lined with Riva LC and Riva SC. Moderate pulp inflammation occurred in one tooth lined with Riva LC. Bacteria were identified in one specimen of the same group that exhibited no pulp damage. At 30 days, slight pulp inflammation and discrete tissue disorganization persisted in two specimens treated with Riva LC, in which a thin layer of tertiary dentin was deposited. Mean RDTs ranged from 383.0 to 447.8 μm.

Conclusions

Riva LC produced more damage to the pulp than Riva SC. However, the initial pulp damage decreased over time and after 30 days both GICs were labeled as biocompatible.

Clinical relevance

In this study conducted with human teeth, the conventional and the resin-modified glass ionomer cements investigated were shown not to cause post-operative sensitivity or persistent pulp damage when applied as liners in very deep cavities, thereby indicating their biocompatibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Soares DG, Zhang Z, Mohamed F, Eyster TW, de Souza Costa CA, Ma PX (2018) Simvastatin and nanofibrous poly(l-lactic acid) scaffolds to promote the odontogenic potential of dental pulp cells in an inflammatory environment. Acta Biomater 1(68):190–203

    Google Scholar 

  2. Luiz de Oliveira da Rosa W, Machado da Silva T, Fernando Demarco F, Piva E, Fernandes da Silva A (2017) Could the application of bioactive molecules improve vital pulp therapy success? A systematic review. J Biomed Mater Res A 105(3):941–956

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hebling J, Giro EM, Costa CA (1999) Human pulp response after an adhesive system application in deep cavities. J Dent 27(8):557–564

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. de Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Randall RC (2006) Human pulp response to resin cements used to bond inlay restorations. Dent Mater 22(10):954–962

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. de Souza Costa CA, Teixeira HM, Lopes do Nascimento AB, Hebling J (2007) Biocompatibility of resin based dental materials applied as liners in deep cavities prepared in human teeth. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 81(1):175–184

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Costa CA, Ribeiro AP, Giro EM, Randall RC, Hebling J (2011) Pulp response after application of two resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) in deep cavities of prepared human teeth. Dent Mater 27(7):e158–e170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rodriguez IA, Ferrara CA, Campos Sanchez F, Alaminos M, Echevarria JU, Campos A (2013) An in vitro biocompatibility study of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements. J Adhes Dent 15(6):541–546

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. de Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Scheffel DL, Soares DG, Basso FG, Ribeiro AP (2014) Methods to evaluate and strategies to improve the biocompatibility of dental materials and operative techniques. Dent Mater 30(7):769–784

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Giraud T, Jeanneau C, Rombouts C, Bakhtiar H, Laurent P, About I (2019) Pulp capping materials modulate the balance between inflammation and regeneration. Dent Mater 35(1):24–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Song M, Yu B, Kim S, Hayashi M, Smith C, Sohn S, Kim E, Lim J, Stevenson RG, Kim RH (2017) Clinical and molecular perspectives of reparative dentin formation: lessons learned from pulp capping materials and the emerging roles of calcium. Dent Clin of North Am 61(1):93–110

    Google Scholar 

  11. Prati C, Gandolfi MG (2015) Calcium silicate bioactive cements: biological perspectives and clinical applications. Dent Mater 31(4):351–370

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwendicke F, Brouwer F, Schwendicke A, Paris S (2016) Different materials for direct pulp capping: systematic review and meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Clin Oral Investig 20(6):1121–1132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Frencken JE (2014) The state of the art of ART sealants. Dent Update 41(2):119–120 122-124

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berg JH, Croll TP (2015) Glass ionomer restorative cement systems: an update. Pediatr Dent 37(2):116–124

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V, Banerjee A (2010) Pulp response to resin modified glass ionomer and calcium hydroxide cements in deep cavities: a quantitative systematic review. Dent Mater 26(8):761–770

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mesquita AJ, Lacerda-Santos R, Pina Godoy G, Nonaka CFW, Alves PM (2017) Morphological and immunohistochemical analysis of the biocompatibility of resin modified cements. Microsc Res Tech 80(5):504–510

    Google Scholar 

  17. Soares DG, Basso FG, Scheffel DL, Giro EM, de Souza Costa CA, Hebling J (2016) Biocompatibility of a restorative resin modified glass ionomer cement applied in very deep cavities prepared in human teeth. Gen Dent 64(4):33–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ribeiro DA, Marques ME, Salvadori DM (2006) Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of glass ionomer cements on Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. J Mater Sci Mater Med 17(6):495–500

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bakopoulou A, Mourelatos D, Tsiftsoglou AS, Giassin NP, Mioglou E, Garefis P (2009) Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of different types of dental cement on normal cultured human lymphocytes. Mutat Res 31;672(2):103–112

    Google Scholar 

  20. Geurtsen W, Spahl W, Leyhausen G (1998) Residual monomer/additive release and variability in cytotoxicity of light curing glass ionomer cements and compomers. J Dent Res 77(12):2012–2019

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hamid A, Okamoto A, Iwaku M, Hume WR (1998) Component release from light activated glass ionomer and compomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 25(2):94–99

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kanchanavasita W, Anstice HM, Pearson GJ (1997) Water sorption characteristics of resin modified glass ionomer cements. Biomaterials 18(4):343–349

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. de Mendonca AA, Souza PP, Hebling J, Costa CA (2007) Cytotoxic effects of hard setting cements applied on the odontoblast cell line MDPC-23. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104(4):e102–e108

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Marczuk-Kolada G, Łuczaj-Cepowicz E, Pawińska M, Hołownia A (2017) Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of selected conventional glass ionomer cements on human gingival fibroblasts. Adv Clin Exp Med 26(7):1041–1045

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Souza PP, Aranha AM, Hebling J, Giro EM, Costa CA (2006) In vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo biocompatibility of contemporary resin modified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 22(9):838–844

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Noorani TY, Luddin N, Rahman IA, Masudi SM (2017) In vitro cytotoxicity evaluation of novel nano hydroxyapatite silica incorporated glass ionomer cement. J Clin Diagn Res 11(4):ZC105–ZC109

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. de Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Garcia Godoy F, Hanks CT (2003) In vitro cytotoxicity of five glass ionomer cements. Biomaterials 24(21):3853–3858

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gallorini M, Cataldi A, di Giacomo V (2014) HEMA induced cytotoxicity: oxidative stress, genotoxicity and apoptosis. Int Endod J 47(9):813–818

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Teti G, Orsini G, Salvatore V, Focaroli S, Mazzotti MC, Ruggeri A, Mattioli Belmonte M, Falconi M (2015) HEMA but not TEGDMA induces autophagy in human gingival fibroblasts. Front Physiol 6:275

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Krifka S, Spagnuolo G, Schmalz G, Schweikl H (2013) A review of adaptive mechanisms in cell responses towards oxidative stress caused by dental resin monomers. Biomaterials 34(19):4555–4563

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stanislawski L, Daniau X, Lautic A, Goldberg M (1999) Factors responsible for pulp cell cytotoxicity induced by resin modified glass ionomer cements. J Biomed Mater Res 48(3):277–288

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schmalz G, Krifka S, Schweikl H (2011) Toll like receptors, LPS, and dental monomers. Adv Dent Res 23(3):302–306

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bolling AK, Samuelsen JT, Morisbak E, Ansteinsson V, Becher R, Dahl JE, Mathisen GH (2013) Dental monomers inhibit LPS induced cytokine release from the macrophage cell line RAW264.7. Toxicol Lett 216(23):130–138

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Di Nicolo R, Shintome LK, Myaki SI, Nagayassu MP (2007) Bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement to primary dentin after cutting with different bur types and dentin conditioning. J Appl Oral Sci 15(5):459–464

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. About I, Murray PE, Franquin JC, Remusat M, Smith AJ (2001) The effect of cavity restoration variables on odontoblast cell numbers and dental repair. J Dent 29(2):109–117

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hashimoto M, Ito S, Tay FR, Svizero NR, Sano H, Kaga M, Pashley DH (2004) Fluid movement across the resin dentin interface during and after bonding. J Dent Res 83(11):843–848

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yoshikawa T, Hirasawa M, Tosaki S, Hirota K (1994) Concentration of HEMA eluted from light cured glass ionomers. J Dent Res 73:133

    Google Scholar 

  38. Volk J, Ziemann C, Leyhausen G, Geurtsen W (2009) Non irradiated campherquinone induces DNA damage in human gingival fibroblasts. Dent Mater 25(12):1556–1563

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Volk J, Leyhausen G, Wessels M, Geurtsen W (2014) Reduced glutathione prevents camphorquinone induced apoptosis in human oral keratinocytes. Dent Mater 30(2):215–226

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Savas S, Botsali MS, Kucukyilmaz E, Sari T (2014) Evaluation of temperature changes in the pulp chamber during polymerization of light cured pulp capping materials by using a VALO LED light curing unit at different curing distances. Dent Mater Journal 33(6):764–769

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zach L, Cohen G (1965) Pulp response to externally applied heat. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 19:515–530

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lizarelli RF, Moriyama LT, Bagnato VS (2006) Temperature response in the pulp chamber of primary human teeth exposed to Nd:YAG laser using a picosecond pulsed regime. Photomed Laser Surg 24(5):610–615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Santis LR, Silva TM, Haddad BA, Goncalves LL, Goncalves SE (2017) Influence of dentin thickness on intrapulpal temperature under simulated pulpal pressure during Nd:YAG laser irradiation. Lasers Med Sci 32(1):161–167

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim S (1990) Neurovascular interactions in the dental pulp in health and inflammation. J Endod 16(2):48–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Aranha AM, Giro EM, Souza PP, Hebling J, de Souza Costa CA (2006) Effect of curing regime on the cytotoxicity of resin-modified glass-ionomer lining cements applied to an odontoblast-cell line. Dent Mater 22(9):864–869

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mr. Jose Antonio Sampaio Zuanon, technician of the Laboratory of Pathology, Department of Physiology and Pathology, Univ Estadual Paulista—Unesp, Araraquara School of Dentistry, SP, Brazil, for all technical support provided in this in vivo study.

Funding

This study was partially supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development—CNPq (grant # 307696/2014-6 and # 408721/2018-9) and SDI Limited, Bayswater, Victoria, Australia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, University of Florida, 1395 Center Drive, 100405, Gainesville, FL, 32606, USA

    Ana Paula Dias Ribeiro

  2. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Unip – Universidade Paulista, Goiania Goias, Brazil, Br 153 Highway, Km 503, area 1-5, s/n - Fazenda Botafogo, Goiania, GO, 74845-090, Brazil

    Nancy Tomoko Sacono

  3. Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, Sao Paulo University – USP, Octavio Pinheiro Brizola, 9-75, Bauru, SP, 17012-901, Brazil

    Diana Gabriela Soares

  4. Department of Physiology and Pathology, UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista, Araraquara School of Dentistry, Rua Humaita 1680, Araraquara, SP, 14801-903, Brazil

    Ester Alves Ferreira Bordini & Carlos Alberto de Souza Costa

  5. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista, Araraquara School of Dentistry, Rua Humaita 1680, Araraquara, SP, 14801-903, Brazil

    Josimeri Hebling

Authors
  1. Ana Paula Dias Ribeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nancy Tomoko Sacono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diana Gabriela Soares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ester Alves Ferreira Bordini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlos Alberto de Souza Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Josimeri Hebling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josimeri Hebling.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Research Ethics Committee of the University of Araraquara, Araraquara, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Protocol # 645.

Informed consent

Formal consent was provided by the donors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ribeiro, A.P.D., Sacono, N.T., Soares, D.G. et al. Human pulp response to conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements applied in very deep cavities. Clin Oral Invest 24, 1739–1748 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03035-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03035-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation