Abstract
The aim of this clinical investigation was to evaluate a novel ceramic (CF) filling material (DoxaDent) compared to resin composite (RC) and enamel in regard to plaque formation and gingival inflammation. The CF material is inorganic, non-metallic, and contains calcium aluminate, silicate, and water. To make intra-individual comparisons possible, each participant had at least one set of three test surfaces: two Class V restorations with subgingival cervical margins (one of the novel CF material and one of a hybrid RC) and one non-filled enamel surface (E). The amounts of plaque, gingival crevicular fluid, and clinical signs of gingival inflammation were intra-individually compared in 20 sets of the three test surfaces. In a cross-sectional study (CSS), the effect of oral hygiene on plaque formation and gingivitis around the surfaces was evaluated. In a following 10-day experimental gingivitis study (EGS), plaque formation and the induction of gingivitis during refrain from oral hygiene was compared. In the CSS, no significant differences were found between the surfaces in terms of amount of plaque and degree of gingival inflammation. At the end of the EGS the restorative materials showed a significantly higher amount of plaque (CF versus E, P = 0.014; RC versus E, P = 0.034), but no significant differences were found in degree of gingival inflammation. In condusion, the ceramic filling material was comparable to RC regarding plaque formation and gingival inflammation with customary oral hygiene. With neglected oral hygiene, significantly less plaque growth and a non-significant tendency toward lower amounts of gingival crevicular fluid were observed on enamel surfaces.
