{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038977635782747606, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014057507987220448, 'mean_word_length': 5.093385214007782, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gingival Health Around Cervical Carious Lesions Restored with Calcium Silicate-based Cement (Biodentine™) Compared with Glass-ionomer Cement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

AIM
The study aims to assess the gingival health around cervical lesions restored with calcium silicate-based cement (Biodentine™) compared to treatment with glass-ionomer cement (GIC).


MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 28 healthy subjects with carious lesions on the cervical third of the buccal surfaces of posterior teeth (class V-Black's classification) have participated and were distributed over two equal groups. The participants in each group received one type of the tested cements: Biodentine™ or GIC. The oral hygiene and the gingival health of the restored teeth were evaluated clinically at 1, 3, and 6 month intervals.


RESULTS
Comparing clinical parameters of gingival and periodontal tissues adjacent to cervical restorations indicated significant differences. Plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) were higher in the Biodentine™ group at 1, 3, and 6 months of evaluation with a significant difference (p < 0.05), a rise in pocket depth has been noticed at 3 and 6 months (p < 005). Gingival recession (GR) did not show any difference between groups (p > 0.05). Moreover, bleeding on probing (BOP) values were higher for Biodentine™ restorations compared with GIC with a significant difference (p < 0.05).


CONCLUSION
Cervical restorations of Biodentine™ were associated with more plaque accumulation with a higher degree of gingival inflammation in comparison with GIC.