New trends in polishing direct resin composites.

PubMed ID: 15543695[No abstract available

Shear bond strength of different adhesives to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin

PubMed ID: 17080880Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the influence of Er:YAG laser on the shear bond strength of three different adhesives to lased dentin. Materials and Methods: Seventy specimens obtained from 35 extracted human molars were embedded in polyester resin and ground with silicon carbide papers. The samples were divided into seven groups. 1. Er:YAG laser (Key Laser 3, KaVo) + Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray); 2. Er:YAG laser + Clearfil tri-S Bond (Kuraray); 3. Er:YAG laser + 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2 (3M-ESPE); 4. Er:YAG laser + Single Bond 2; 5. conventional method + Clearfil Protect Bond; 6. conventional method + Clearfil tri-S Bond; 7. conventional method + 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2. The samples were subjected to shear bond testing 24 h after bonding. Statistical analyses were carried out by two-way ANOVA, t-test, one-way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey's and Dunnett C test (p = 0.05). Results: Only the Er:YAG laser + Clearfil tri-S Bond group demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths vs conventionally prepared specimens (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the shear bond strengths of Single Bond 2 adhesive applied to laser- vs bur-treated specimens (p > 0.05). In laser prepared samples, Clearfil Protect Bond showed the highest scores (p < 0.05), whereas in conventionally prepared groups, no statistical differences were observed between Clearfil Protect Bond and Clearfil tri-S Bond (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Er:YAG laser irradiation did not adversely affect the shear bond strength of Single Bond 2 and Clearfil Protect Bond to dentin, whereas it increased the shear bond strength values of Clearfil tri-S Bond

Radiopacity of Posterior Restorative Materials: A Comparative In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND: The objective was to investigate the radiopacity of 11 commercial posterior restorative materials by establishing their mean gray values (MGVs) and comparing them with dental hard tissues. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five-disc specimens were prepared for each of the following materials: Cerasmart 270 CAD/CAM block A3LT (CS), Amalgam (A), Ketac Molar A3 (KM), Cention-N A2 (CN), G-aenial Universal Flo AO2 (GO2) and A2 (G2), Ever-X Flow Dentine (EXD) and Bulk (EXB) shades, Equia Forte HT Fil A2 (EF2) and A3 (EF3), and Equia Fil A3 (E3). Freshly extracted maxillary premolar teeth were used as a control. The MGVs of specimens and a 10-step aluminum stepwedge (Al) were measured with Adobe Photoshop. ANOVA and Dunnett T3 tests were used to assess the significance of the differences (α=0.05). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were revealed between some of the groups. Amalgam had the highest radiopacity. The radiopacity of dentin and CS were close to that of 1 mm Al. G2, KM, GO2, EXB, and EXD showed higher mean radiopacity than dentin. Enamel had a radiopacity equivalent to 2 mm Al. CN, EF2, and E3 had higher mean radiopacity than enamel. CONCLUSIONS: All materials met the ISO requirements. Alkasite and reinforced glass ionomer restoratives demonstrated higher mean radiopacity than the posterior flowable composites. Material shades did not affect the radiopacity. ©Operative Dentistry, 2023