# Characteristics of Interface Zone Between Glass-Based Restorative Materials and Sound and Caries-Affected Primary Dentine

## TL;DR

This study compares how well different dental materials bond with healthy and decayed primary dentin, finding that newer materials may offer better sealing.

## Contribution

The study introduces a novel evaluation of interface quality between glass-based restorative materials and caries-affected primary dentin.

## Key findings

- GH materials showed better sealing in sound dentin compared to other materials.
- All materials exhibited higher microleakage in caries-affected dentin than in sound dentin.
- Caries-induced demineralization negatively impacts the material-dentin interface quality.

## Abstract

The aim was to evaluate the interface zone between glass hybrid (GH), high-viscosity (HV), and resin-modified (RM) glass-ionomer cements (GIC) and sound (SD) and artificially created caries-affected (ACAD) primary dentin. Occlusal cavities were prepared in 120 extracted primary molars and randomly assigned to SD or ACAD. Samples were restored with GH (Equia Forte HT-EF), HV-GIC (Equia Fill-E; Ketac Molar-KM), or RM-GIC (Fuji-II LC-FII; Photac Fill-PF) and exposed to thermal aging. Microleakage (methylene-blue) was analyzed using an optical digital microscope. The interface between dental tissues and restorative materials was analyzed using a scanning electron (SE) microscope. SE microphotographs were manually annotated for intimate contact and cracks/gaps at the material-enamel/dentin interface and analyzed using a custom Python-based algorithm to quantify the respective percentages. No microleakage was noted only in the SD group for EF (50%), FII (42%), and E (33%). All materials showed higher microleakage in ACAD than SD (p < 0.05). No continuous intimate contact between restorative material and dental tissues was observed along the entire interface. The mean proportion of intimate contact between the material and SD was EF (76%) > KM (55%) > E (38%) > FII (7%) > PF (4%), and EF (32%) > KM (24%) > E (16%) > FII (15%) > PF (0%) for ACAD (p < 0.05). Caries-induced demineralization affects the quality of the material–dentin interface. GH are likely to provide better sealing compared to the previous generations of GI materials.