Specific material recommendations for the restoration of root surface caries are difficult because of a lack of data on the clinical performance of restorative materials in these situations. Although silver amalgam has been successfully used to restore carious roots, resin composite, glass ionomer, and resin-modified glass ionomers are also used to restore root surfaces since they are esthetic and bond to tooth structure. Fluoride releasing materials may inhibit recurrent caries in restored surfaces; however, clinical documentation of this phenomenon is sparse. This paper describes the efficacy of restorative materials used to restore root surfaces, the dynamic movement of fluoride into and out of restorative materials, and the role that fluoride releasing materials may play in the inhibition of recurrent caries in vitro and in vivo. In addition, classifications are given for low, medium, and high caries risk patients and material recommendations are made for each category of patient.Accumulated evidence has illustrated that secondary caries is the major reason for the failure of amalgam and resin composite restorations. The purpose of this study was to assess the cariostatic effects of aged fluoride-containing restorative materials on the formation of secondary root caries. Fifty sound human molars were selected and randomly assigned to five material groups: non-fluoride-containing amalgam (NA), fluoride-containing amalgam (FA), non-fluoride-containing composite (NC), fluoride-containing composite (FC), and glass-ionomer cement (GIC). After standardized class V cavity preparations and placement of restorations, teeth within each group were randomly divided into two subgroups, “non-aged” and “aged”. The aged subgroup was immersed in an inorganic buffer solution for 2 wks before being thermocycled. After being thermocycled and subjected to four cycles of caries formation in a bacterial model system, the teeth were sectioned. Depths of outer lesions and areas of lesions on the cavity walls were measured by polarized light microscopy. The results showed that the FA and GIC groups, whether aged or not, had significantly smaller outer lesion depth than the non-fluoride-containing NA and NC groups. After aging, the FA group demonstrated significantly greater lesion depth (p = 0.0002), while the GIC group exhibited no significant changes in lesion depths. The NA group had a greater wall lesion area than the NC group, while both demonstrated no significant changes following 2 weeks of aging. The FA and GIC groups had similar inhibition areas along the cavity walls, whereas both inhibition areas increased significantly after the aging process. It is concluded that the fluoride-containing amalgam and the glass-ionomer cement, even after a two-week aging process, can still elicit a significant preventive effect on recurrent root caries in an in vitro bacterial model systemThe usefulness of fluoride-releasing restorations in secondary caries prevention may be questioned because of the presence of other common sources of fluoride and because of ageing of the restorations. This study tested the hypothesis that glass-ionomer cement restorations, either aged or unaged, do not prevent secondary root caries, when fluoride dentifrice is frequently used. Sixteen volunteers wore palatal appliances in two phases of 14 days, according to a 2 x 2 crossover design. In each phase the appliance was loaded with bovine root dentine slabs restored with either glass-ionomer or resin composite, either aged or unaged. Specimens were exposed to cariogenic challenge 4 times/day and to fluoridated dentifrice 3 times/day. The fluoride content in the biofilm (FB) formed on slabs and the mineral loss (DeltaZ) around the restorations were analysed. No differences were found between restorative materials regarding the FB and the DeltaZ, for either aged (p = 0.792 and p = 0.645, respectively) or unaged (p = 1.00 and p = 0.278, respectively) groups. Under the cariogenic and fluoride dentifrice exposure conditions of this study, the glass-ionomer restoration, either aged or unaged, did not provide additional protection against secondary root caries
.
