References

Blum IR, Younis N, Wilson NHF. Use of lining materials under posterior composite restorations in the UK. J Dent. 2017; 57:66-72
Blum IR, Wilson NHF Consequences of no more linings under composite restorations. Br Dent J. 2019; 226:749-752
von Fraunhofer JA, Marshall KR, Holman BG. The effect of base/liner use on restoration leakage. Gen Dent. 2006; 54:106-109
Schwendicke F, Tu Y-K, Hsu L-Y, Gostemeyer G. Antibacterial effects of cavity lining: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015; 434:1298-1307
Burke FJT. What's new in dentine bonding? Universal adhesives. Dent Update. 2017; 44:328-340
Arandi NZ. Calcium hydroxide liners: a literature review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2017; 9:67-72
Combe EC, Burke FJT, Douglas WH. Dental Biomaterials.Norwell, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999

FAQs

From Volume 48, Issue 5, May 2021 | Pages 341-342

Authors

Article

Trevor Burke

One would have thought that someone as old as I, would know exactly how long a given lecture would take to present! Apparently not, given that, at a recent lecture for the BDIA virtual meeting, I over-ran and agreed to respond to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) by publishing my responses later. The questions related to resin composite restorations, so here we go!

‘What do you suggest in cavities that need lining before filling with composite?’ On a similar theme, ‘Do you use Dycal under deep composite restorations?’

Historically:

  • Oldies were taught that a base was always needed;
  • Bases are used under amalgam for thermal insulation;
  • In a survey of 500 UK-based GDPs in 2017, published by Igor Blum and colleagues,1 83% always placed a lining before placing a composite restoration;
  • There is a supposed antibacterial effect of glass ionomer as a lining;
  • Bases isolate the pulp from chemical irritants, ie pulp protection.
  • The contemporary view2 is that:

  • A modern dentine bonding agent will seal the restoration and the dentinal tubules;
  • Placement of a base limits the surface area for bonding;
  • Resin composites are insulators, therefore do not need a base for that reason;
  • Not placing a base represents a saving in time;
  • Bases are only needed for therapeutic reasons.
  • Research to back up these comments includes the following. Von Fraunhofer and co-workers3 found an increase in microleakage, post-operative sensitivity and potentially secondary caries when a lining was present under a posterior composite restoration. Blum and colleagues1 found that prevalence of post-op sensitivity after placement of posterior composite restorations was 20% greater when a lining was placed. Last, Schwendicke et al,4 in a systematic review, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend cavity linings based on their antibacterial effects, adding that dentists should be aware that the use of cavity liners is not recommended by clinical studies.

    Is that sufficient to answer the questions on the need for a base? I realize that it is difficult for clinician to change what they were taught at dental school, especially if they have been placing a liner or base under composite restorations for years. The message today, however, is to trust your bonding agent! In this regard, I will shortly publish a positive follow-up to my 2017 publication5 in which I considered universal adhesives were an advance on many of the bonding agents that we had previously. On the other hand, if you feel that you could not sleep at night if you didn't place a base under composite restorations, then, for goodness sake, use one that is adhesive (for example, the resin modified glass ionomer (RGMI), Vitrebond, 3M, MN, USA) rather than one which is not (for example Dycal, Dentsply, Milford, DE, USA), given that it has been suggested6 that the physical properties of Dycal are not sufficient and that it should always be covered with a layer of RMGI to protect it.

    Another FAQ asked for details of the ‘optimum core build-up material for a molar, whether root-filled or not’.

    Let's go back to basics! The purpose of the core build-up is to replace missing tooth structure and to create optimal resistance and retention form for the crown preparation. It should have:7

  • Adequate strength in compression, tension and flexure in order to resist forces of occlusion and lateral occlusal forces;
  • An ability to bond to tooth structure and/or pins and posts, and also to the luting cement;
  • Easy mixing and handling, and sufficiently low in cost;
  • Radiopacity similar to or greater than enamel;
  • Dimensional stability; and, of course,
  • Biocompatibility with the surrounding tissues, and, ideally exerting a cariostatic effect on surrounding tooth substance.
  • Which materials fit the bill? Dental amalgam has been widely used in the past, but bonding it to tooth structure is problematical, and the use of dentine pins to retain it is now discouraged. Conventional glass ionomer (GI) materials, while having satisfactory compressive strength, are poor in flexion, which rules those out. Reinforced GIs are probably sufficiently rigid and the manufacturers of the most recent GIs such as Equia Forte (GC) claim improved physical properties over reinforced GIs, so that would probably work.

    However, if one looks at the list of ideal properties, resin composite fulfils all but one (cariostasis) of the ideal criteria. Dual-cured composite materials have been introduced as core build-up materials because these have the advantage of being placeable in bulk, and provide complete curing in areas that may be out of reach of the curing light. Resin composite for use as a core build-up should have a contrasting colour, so that the clinician will be able to visualize where the core ends and the tooth starts, given that the margin of the crown preparation should always be on tooth substance rather than on the core (as that makes for two interfaces rather than one).

    Hope that helps! A couple more FAQs in the next issue.

    Finally, as always, thanks to all our authors, but a special thank you again to Martin Kelleher for enlightening us regarding more dental fallacies. I make no apologies for his paper being a lengthy one, but readers will find that it is full of tips and tricks (one that I particularly enjoyed was to chill the composite material to make it more sculptable!), and common sense.