Correction of the State of Enamel Mineral Metabolism in Persons with Decompensated Caries at Various Times after Oral Cavity Sanitation

B. R. Shumilovich, A. V. Sushchenko, A. V. Podoprigora, D .V. Shishkin, R. I. Burykh, V. A. Kunin, M. A. Evtukova, K. S. Daulech

International Journal of Biomedicine. 2022;12(2):279-283.
DOI: 10.21103/Article12(2)_OA14
Originally published June 5, 2022


The aim of the study was to determine the effectiveness of brushite exposure to correct the marginal permeability of composite restorations in persons with a decompensated form of carious process activity; this study also examined the penetrating ability of brushite in the micro-cracks of the enamel-composite border
Methods and Results: The study included 120 patients (age 18-40 years) with a decompensated course of the carious process, who underwent complete oral cavity sanitation with the direct composite restoration of 300 teeth. The obtained results were analyzed and interpreted in vivo (the clinical effectiveness of the restoration was assessed according to the Ryge criteria immediately after treatment and 1, 12, and 36 months after treatment) and in vitro (scanning electron microscopy of the enamel-composite joint after applying the composite and after treatment with the studied means). According to the purpose and objectives of the study, two groups of patients were formed: Group 1 (control, n=58): the prevention of recurrent caries after sanitation was carried out using a standard personal hygiene product containing fluorine; Group 2 (experimental, n=62): the prevention of recurrent caries after sanitation was carried out using a natural two-component complex for strengthening and remineralization of enamel RemarsGel.
During statistical processing of the obtained data, immediately after sanitation and one month after it, the differences in the indicators of the Ryge criteria in Groups 1 and 2 were statistically insignificant. Twelve months after the sanitation, the Ryge restoration quality indicators in Group 2 were higher than in Group 1 (P≤ 0.001). After 36 months, the statistical significance of the difference in the restoration quality indicators increased (P≤ 0.0001). These results were confirmed by the data of scanning electron microscopy. Based on the results obtained, stating the state of the quality of the enamel-composite joint, it can be concluded that brushite crystals are highly effective in preventing violations of the integrity of the enamel-composite joint, which has a direct and immediate impact on the quality of restoration.
Conclusion: We consider it necessary to add to the list of main indications for the use of the RemarsGel system one more, a scientifically based indication of the targeted use of the system in the presence of a significant amount of adhesive, both direct and indirect restorations in the oral cavity, especially in the decompensated course of the carious process.

recurrent caries • composite material • brushite crystal • individual oral hygiene product • decompensated caries • Rуge criteria
  1. Shumilovich BR, Vorobieva YuB, Malykhina IE, Chertovskikh AV. [Modern ideas about the crystal structure of hydroxyapatite and the processes of age-related changes in tooth enamel (In vitro study)]. Journal of Anatomy and Histopathology. 2015;4(1):77-86. [Article in Russian].
  2. Shumilovich BR, Saneev AV, Malykhina IE, Chertovskikh AV. [Morphological Features of the Microstructure of Enamel and Dentin in their Dissection Rotary Tool (in vitro study)]. Journal of Anatomy and Histopathology. 2016;5(1):69-75. [Article in Russian].
  3. Bakharev LYu. Biomechanics and clinical efficacy of intraoral and laboratory dental restorations. Abstract of PhD Thesis. Moscow; 2004. [in Russian].
  4. Boer VM. [Discussion on modern concepts of adhesive filling. Part I]. Institute of Dentistry. 2001;(4):12-15. [Article in Russian].
  5. Goloshchapov D.L. Study of the morphology and chemical composition of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite of synthetic and natural origin: dis. master. Voronezh, 2010. [in Russian].
  6. Elin VA. Optimization of technologies for preparing hard tissues of the tooth for restoration: Abstract of PhD Thesis. Samara, 2004. [in Russian].
  7. Eremin I.V. Comparative clinical and functional evaluation of methods of direct restoration of teeth. Abstract of PhD Thesis. Perm, 2008. [in Russian].
  8. Shumilovich BR, Kosolapov VP, Rostovtsev VV, Filippova ZA. [Modern aspects of solving the problem of bacterial contamination of various components of a dental appointment]. Hygiene and Sanitation. 2018;97(8):743-749. [Article in Russian].
  9. Ippolitov YuA. [The value of the organic component of hard tissues of the tooth for the prevention of the destructive process]. Bulletin of Dentistry. 2006; No.2:41-46. [Article in Russian].
  10. Sadovsky VV. Clinical technologies for blocking caries. M.: Meditsinskaya Kniga, 2005. [in Russian].
  11. Livanova O.L. Differential algorithms for the choice of composite materials for aesthetic restorations of hard tissues of teeth: Abstract of PhD Thesis. Moscow, 2009. [in Russian].
  12. Lutz F. Discussion on modern concepts of adhesive filling. Part II. Clinical Dentistry. 2001;(4):15-18.
  13. Shumilovich BR, Besek M, Rostovtsev VV, Burykh RI, Filippova ZA. [Clinical and laboratory characteristics of the state of the enamel-composite compound when using individual oral hygiene products containing brushite]. Journal of Anatomy and Histopathology. 2018;7(3):92-99. [Article in Russian].
  14. I.M. Makeeva, E.A. Khaustov. Evaluation of edge fit of composite materials by electrometry method. MMSI 75 years: Proceeding of scientific papers. Moscow, 1997:249. [in Russian].
  15. Hiora JP. [Expanding the possibilities of direct aesthetic restoration of the frontal group of teeth using the "sandwich technique"]. Maestro of Dentistry. 2005;(1):10-17. [Article in Russian].
  16. Hiora JP. [Aesthetic restoration of teeth using nanocomposites]. Clinical atlas: Manual for dental students. St. Petersburg, 2007:144. [Article in Russian].
  17. Shpak TA. [Adhesive systems in modern dentistry. Part I]. Institute of Dentistry. 2005; 1(26):93-95. [Article in Russian].
  18. Shpak TA. [Adhesive systems in modern dentistry]. Part II. Institute of Dentistry. 2005; 2(27):42-44. [Article in Russian].
  19. Yudina NA, Leus PA. [A new integral indicator of dental status and its use in scientific research]. Institute of Dentistry. 2010; 1(46):86-88. [Article in Russian].
  20. Dubova MA. [Adhesive systems in modern dentistry]. Institute of Dentistry. 2005; (1):93-95. [Article in Russian].
  21. Zoibelmann MV. Development of an assessment of the effectiveness of the use of dentin and enamel bonding systems in the treatment of caries and its complications, their effect on the hard tissues of the tooth. Abstract of PhD Thesis. Voronezh, 2005. [in Russian].
  22. Petrikas OA, Petrikas IV. Adhesive technologies. How serious is this? (The components of the success of adhesive technologies). New in Dentistry. 1998;(9):3-7. [Article in Russian].
  23. Platonova ASh. Prevention of secondary and recurrent dental caries. Abstract of PhD Thesis. Moscow, 2005. [in Russian].
  24. Ron GI, Mandra YuV. To the question of the choice of bonding systems in the treatment of caries. Clinical Dentistry. 1999;(1):48-51.
  25. Batyukov NM, Ivanova GG, Kasumova MK. [System analysis of hard tissues of teeth based on optical and electrical probing signals (Parts I-III)]. Institute of Dentistry. 2007;1(34):102-105. [Article in Russian].
  26. Terry D, Lainfield C, James A. Minimally invasive technique. The concept and principles of adhesion. Dental Times. 2010;(4):6-8.
  27. Tey F. [The status quo and the future of dentin adhesives]. DentArt. 2003;(2):13-16. [Article in Russian].
  28. Terikhova TN. [Modern data on the composition, structure and properties of hard tissues of the tooth]. Modern Dentistry. 2002;(1):27-34. [Article in Russian].
  29. Shumilovich BR, Vorobeva YuB, Mironova VV, Panina OA. [Laboratory analysis of the quality of applying an adhesive system to the surface of enamel and dentin as a prevention of recurrent caries in the treatment of chewing teeth]. Pediatric Dentistry and Prophylaxis. 2015;14,1(52):10-13. [Article in Russian].
  30. Brackett WW, Ito S, Nishitani Y, Haisch LD, Pashley DH. The microtensile bond strength of self-etching adhesives to ground enamel. Oper Dent. 2006 May-Jun;31(3):332-7. doi: 10.2341/05-38. Erratum in: Oper Dent. 2006 Jul-Aug;31(4):520. 
  31. Haller В, Blunck U. [Review and analysis of modern adhesive systems]. New in Dentistry. 2004;(1):11-19. [Article in Russian].
  32. Joffe E. [How to choose the material for adhesive technique?] New in Dentistry. 2000;(1):19-22.
  33. Krejci I, Placek M, Stavridakis M. N[ew Perspectives in Dentinal Adhesion - Different Types of Bonds]. New in Dentistry. 2002;(6):21-24.
  34. Kimishima T, Nara Y, Hasegawa M. Adhesion strength for single step adhesive systems. 83rd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Dental Research/34th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Dental Research, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, March 9-12, 2005.
  35. Liebenberg WH. [Adhesive Dentistry Trial Period]. Stomatolog. 2000;(1):52-53. [Article in Russian].

Download Article
Received March 1, 2022.
Accepted April 14, 2022.
©2022 International Medical Research and Development Corporation.