Prophylometric analysis of class-II cavities finished with four different methods

This research aimed to evaluate four systems indicated for the finishing of cervical margins in class II cavities, in order to find out which instrument guarantees the smoothest surface in terms of Ra and Wa. The null hypothesis was to find no significant difference among the test groups (α = 0.05)

A 48-month clinical evaluation of Class-V restorations with two different composites

Methods Throughout the Nov-07/Jan-08 time period, 60 class-V restorations have been performed. In order to be part of the study, every patient was to need at least 2 restorations on vital teeth, which had to be located on opposite quadrants of the oral cavity. All the restorations were made with micro-layering technique using Swiss Master Light (EMS) curing light (800 mW/cm2 for 20s). The test groups were randomly assigned to the class V cavities using composite and adhesive materials as follows: A) testing material - Venus-Diamond and GlumaComfortBond (Heraeus) B) competitor - CeramX-Duo and Prime&Bond-NT (Dentsply) A quadrant-based randomization was used to assign to every restoration its filling material and adhesive system: restorations have been performed according to the adhesive dentistry techniques by one expert clinician (>10 years of clinical experience). Each restoration was polished with the 2-step polishing system provided by Heraeus Kulzer (pre-polisher and high-gloss finisher). The polishing time used has been 20s with the pre-polisher and 40s with finisher. Results Clinical evaluations were made by 2 independent clinicians with more than 80% of agreement using a visual loop (4.5x). Four year controls have been executed with USPHS evaluating system. None of the restorations received a Charlie rating. The restorations received 65% (Venus-Diamond) and 57% (CeramX-Duo) Alpha ratings for surface texture. The defects/gaps in marginal adaptation score was recorded as increased. Some restoration was lost: in testing material 23% and in competitor-group 30%. We noticed a 35% in (A) and a 38% in (B) rated Bravo for color matching ability. No restorations showed post-operative sensitivity or endodontic treatment needed and no adverse events were reported. Conclusions In this clinical trial testing material behave with some slight advantages compared to the competitor

Rotary versus reciprocating shaping files in bacterial elimination from long oval canals

A comparison of the abilities of rotary versus reciprocating files to eliminate viable Enterococcus faecalis populations from the long oval root canals of extracted human teeth. Fifty teeth were contaminated and randomly distributed into two groups (n = 25 each): BT-RaCe group and WaveOne group. Two microbial samples were obtained from each tooth before (S1) and after (S2) instrumentation. The CFUs from the S1 and S2 measurements were calculated and compared between the groups. Both groups showed significantly fewer CFUs in the S2 samples (P < 0.001). In the S2 intragroup comparison, BT-RaCe resulted in significantly fewer CFUs than WaveOne (P = 0.010). In the direct comparison between the rotary multiple file shaping system and the reciprocating single-file system, the multiple file system was more efficient at reducing the microbiological load of viable E. faecalis from long oval root canals. © 2017 Australian Society of Endodontology In