WATER SORPTION AND SOLUBILITY OF DIFFERENT CALCIUM HYDROXIDE CEMENTS

Objectives: Calcium hydroxide cements have been largely used in deep cavities due to their abilities to stimulate dentin formation. However, their resistance can be relatively low and their solubility relatively high, in many instances. This study evaluated water sorption and solubility of different calcium hydroxide cements, in order to show alterations that may reduce their effectiveness. Material and methods: Five discs (20 mm in diameter and 1.5 mm thick) of three different materials (Biocal (R), Dycal (R) and Hidro C (R)) were prepared with the aid of a ring-shaped metallic matrix. After being stored at 37 C for 24 h, the discs were weighed on a precision weight scale, dehydrated and weighed again. Immediately after weighing, discs were stored for a week in 50 mL of distilled water at 37 degrees C and, then, weighed again, dehydrated and submitted to a new weighing. The loss of soluble material and its water sorption was obtained from the difference between the initial and the final dry mass of each disc, after 1 week of immersion in water. Data were analyzed for significant differences by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p<0.05). Results: Mean water sorption values (g) +/- standard deviation and percentage (%), for each evaluated cement, were: Biocal (R) (0.006 +/- 0.001 / 2.15); Dycal (R) (0.016 +/- 0.004 / 5.49); and Hidro C (R) (0.025 +/- 0.003 / 8.27). Mean solubility values (g) +/- standard deviation and percentage (%), for each evaluated cement, were: Biocal (R) (0.002 +/- 0.001 / 0.72); Dycal (R) (0.013 +/- 0.004 / 4.21); and Hidro C (R) (0.023 +/- 0.004 / 7.65). Conclusions: Biocal (R) absorbed less water and was less soluble than the other evaluated cements; Hidro C (R) exhibited the highest water sorption and solubility values; and there were significant differences among all evaluated experimental groups.175427431SESu/MEC (PET-Brazil

Comparative clinical study of the effectiveness of different dental bleaching methods - two year follow-up

This study evaluated color change, stability, and tooth sensitivity in patients submitted to different bleaching techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, 48 patients were divided into five groups. A half-mouth design was conducted to compare two in-office bleaching techniques (with and without light activation): G1: 35% hydrogen peroxide (HP) (Lase Peroxide - DMC Equipments, São Carlos, SP, Brazil) + hybrid light (HL) (LED/Diode Laser, Whitening Lase II DMC Equipments, São Carlos, SP, Brazil); G2: 35% HP; G3: 38% HP (X-traBoost - Ultradent, South Jordan UT, USA) + HL; G4: 38% HP; and G5: 15% carbamide peroxide (CP) (Opalescence PF - Ultradent, South Jordan UT, USA). For G1 and G3, HP was applied on the enamel surface for 3 consecutive applications activated by HL. Each application included 3x3' HL activations with 1' between each interval; for G2 and G4, HP was applied 3x15' with 15' between intervals; and for G5, 15% CP was applied for 120'/10 days at home. A spectrophotometer was used to measure color change before the treatment and after 24 h, 1 week, 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. A VAS questionnaire was used to evaluate tooth sensitivity before the treatment, immediately following treatment, 24 h after and finally 1 week after. RESULTS: Statistical analysis did not reveal any significant differences between in-office bleaching with or without HL activation related to effectiveness; nevertheless the time required was less with HL. Statistical differences were observed between the results after 24 h, 1 week and 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months (intergroup). Immediately, in-office bleaching increased tooth sensitivity. The groups activated with HL required less application time with gel. CONCLUSION: All techniques and bleaching agents used were effective and demonstrated similar behaviors

Transmission of composite polymerization contraction force through a flowable composite and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the individual contraction force during polymerization of a composite resin (Z-250), a flowable composite (Filtek Flow, FF) and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitrebond, VB), and the transmission of Z-250 composite resin polymerization contraction force through different thicknesses of FF and VB. The experiment setup consisted of two identical parallel steel plates connected to a universal testing machine. One was fixed to a transversal base and the other to the equipment's cross head. The evaluated materials were inserted into a 1-mm space between the steel plates or between the inferior steel plate and a previously polymerized layer of an intermediate material (either FF or VB) adhered to the upper steel plate. The composite resin was light-cured with a halogen lamp with light intensity of 500 mW/cm² for 60 s. A force/time graph was obtained for each sample for up to 120 s. Seven groups of 10 specimens each were evaluated: G1: Z-250; G2: FF; G3: VB; G4: Z-250 through a 0.5-mm layer of FF; G5: Z-250 through a 1-mm layer of FF; G6: Z-250 through a 0.5-mm of VB; G7: Z-250 through a 1-mm layer of VB. They were averaged and compared using one-way ANOVA and Tukey test at a = 0.05. The obtained contraction forces were: G1: 6.3N + 0.2N; G2: 9.8 + 0.2N; G3: 1.8 + 0.2N; G4: 6.8N + 0.2N; G5: 6.9N + 0.3N; G6: 4.0N + 0.4N and G7: 2.8N + 0.4N. The use of VB as an intermediate layer promoted a significant decrease in polymerization contraction force values of the restorative system, regardless of material thickness. The use of FF as an intermediate layer promoted an increase in polymerization contraction force values with both material thicknesses

Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: Five-year follow-up

This study evaluated the five-year clinical performance of ceramic inlays and onlays made with two systems: sintered Duceram (Dentsply-Degussa) and pressahle IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent). Eighty-six restorations were placed by a single operator in 35 patients with a median age of 33 years. The restorations were cemented with dual-cured resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent) and Syntac Classic adhesive under rubber dam. The evaluations were conducted by two independent investigators at baseline, and at one, two, three, and five years using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. At the five-year recall, 26 patients were evaluated (74.28%), totalling 62 (72.09%) restorations. Four IPS restorations were fractured, two restorations presented secondary caries (one from IPS and one from Duceram), and two restorations showed unacceptable d€fects at the restoration margin and needed replacement (one restoration from each ceramic system). A general success rateof 87% was recorded. The Fisher exact test revealed no significant difference between Duceram and IPS Empress ceramic systems for all aspects evaluated at different recall appointments (p\u3e0.05). The McNemar chi- square test showed significant differences in relation to marginal discoloration, marginal integrity, and surface texture between the baseline and five-year recall for both systems (p\u3c0.001), with an increased percentage of Bravo scores. However, few Charlie or Delta scores were attributed to these restorations. In conclusion, these two types of ceramic materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance after five years