Comparison of three adhesive systems in class II composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth : influence of Er:YAG laser conditioning and gingival margin levels on microleakage

Dental surface conditioning by Er:YAG laser is currently being investigated, as not all of the mechanisms and effects of this technique have been clearly studied. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess the cervical microleakage of Class II resin composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth following either the respective conventional conditioning or additional Er:YAG laser conditioning, in association with varied adhesives. Standardized mesial-occlusal-distal cavities (two gingival walls positioned in dentin and enamel, respectively) were created in 60 extracted human premolar teeth. Following the completion of the endodontic therapy, the teeth were grouped into six categories based on conditioning modality and adhesive strategy as follows: group 1-37% phosphoric acid/Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB2); group 2-Er:YAG laser/37% phosphoric acid/ASB2; group 3-Clearfil SE Bond (CSE); group 4-Er:YAG laser/CSE; group 5-Adper Easy One (AEO); and group 6-Er:YAG laser/AEO. Specimens were submitted to thermocycling and dye penetration, followed by longitudinal sectioning. The dye penetration was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. One specimen from each group was assessed under a scanning electron microscope for adhesive interface analysis. No significant differences were found between the conditioning modalities, nor between the adhesive systems at both margins. Groups 1 and 2 showed a lower degree of microleakage in the enamel vs. dentin (p = 0.002). Group 2 showed a significantly lower incidence of microleakage in enamel vs. dentin (p = 0.005). CSE and AEO were comparable with that of ASB2 regarding sealing ability. Additional Er:YAG laser conditioning may be beneficial before ASB2 application in enamel

Ağız gargaralarının sonicfill ve bir nanohibrid kompozitin renklenme dayanıklılığı üzerindeki etkileri

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of 4 mouth rinses on the color stability of two different resin composites. Materials and Methods: A2 shade sonic-activated bulk fill material SonicFill (Kerr) and conventional nanohybrid composite Filtek Z550 (3M ESPE) were used. Forty disc-shaped specimens (10 mm x 2 mm) were fabricated for both composites and finished using 400-grit SiC paper and polished. After polishing and immersing in distilled water for 24h all specimens were subjected to color measurements. The baseline color values (L*, a*, b*) of each specimen were measured with a colorimeter. Following baseline measurement each composite group was divided into 5 groups: Oral-B Pro Expert Clinic Line Alcoholfree (Oral-B) group, Listerine Tooth Defense Rinse (Listerine) group, Pharmol Zn Mouth rinse (Çözümilaç) group, Nilera Mouth rinse (Nilera) group and Distilled water (control) group. The specimens were incubated in mouth rinses (20 ml) at 37°C for 12 hours and subjected to color measurement. Two-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis (p<0.05). Results: SonicFill showed significantly higher discoloration when exposed to Oral-B Pro Expert Clinic Line Alcohol-free, Listerine Tooth Defense Rinse and Pharmol Zn Mouth rinse. The color differences of two resin composites were not statistically significant for distilled water and Nilera Mouth rinse. Conclusion: Within the limits of this study it can be concluded that the SonicFill showed higher discoloration than nanohybrid resin composite Filtek Z550.Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, dört farklı ağız gargarasının iki farklı kompozit rezinin renklenme dayanıklığı üzerine etkisinin değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada, A2 renginde sonikle aktive edilen bulk-fill materyal SonicFill (Kerr), ile geleneksel nanohibrit kompozit rezin Filtek Z 550 (3M ESPE) kullanılmıştır. Her iki materyal grubundan, kırk adet disk şekilli örnek (10 mm x 2mm) hazırlanmış ve 400-gritlik zımparalar ile bitirilerek parlatılmışlardır. Parlatma ve distile suda 24 saatlik bekletilme aşamalarının ardından, örneklerin renk ölçümleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Her örneğin ilk ölçüm renk değerleri (L*,a*,b*) kolorimetre ile ölçülmüştür. İlk değerlendirmelerin ardından her kompozit materyali beş gruba ayrılmıştır: Oral B Pro Expert Clinic Line Alkolsüz (Oral-B), Listerine Tooth Defense ağız gargarası (Listerine), Pharmol Zn ağız gargarası, Nilera ağız gargarası (Nilera), ve Distile su (kontrol). Örnekler ağız gargaralarının içerisinde (20 mL) 37 C 0’ de 12 saat bekletildikten sonra tekrar renk ölçümleri yapılmıştır. İstatistiksel analiz için İki yönlü ANOVA kullanılmıştır (p<0.05). Bulgular: SonicFill Oral B Pro Expert Clinic Line Alkolsüz, Listerine Tooth Defense ağız gargarası ve Pharmol Zn ağız gargarasında bekletildiğinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede renklenme göstermiştir. Hiçbir rezin kompozitin renk değişikliği distile su ve Nilera ağız gargarasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemiştir. Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sınırları dahilinde SonicFill’in nanohibrit rezin kompozit Filtek Z 550’den daha fazla renklenme gösterdiği belirtilebilir

Farklı polisaj tekniklerinin estetik kompozitlerin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkileri

Amaç: Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı, iki farklı tek aşamalı polisaj sistemi ve geleneksel çok aşamalı bir disk sistemi ile bitirme ve polisaj işlemleri yapılmış estetik kompozitlerin yüzey pürüzlülüklerini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada kullanılan kompozitler Filtek Ultimate 3M ESPE Grup 1 , Amaris Voco Grup 2 ve Esthet•X® HD Dentsply Grup 3 . Şeffaf bant ile kapatılmış plastik cam kalıplarda toplam 120 örnek hazırlanmıştır. Polimerizasyonun ardından, her grup için polisaj işlemi uygulanmayan 10 örnek, kontrol grubu a olarak belirlenmiştir. Her bir kompozit grubu için n=30 , örnekler rastgele 3 polisaj sistemi grubuna ayrılmıştır: Enhance Dentsply b , OptraPol Vivadent c ve Sof-Lex 3M ESPE d . Tüm polisaj sistemleri üretici firmaların önerileri doğrultusunda uygulanmıştır. Yüzey pürüzlülüğü değerleri bir profilometre ile belirlenmiştir. Bulgular: Esthet•X® HD dışındaki tüm kompozit gruplarında en düzgün yüzeyler şeffaf bant ile elde edilmiştir

Effect of One-Step Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness of Different Flowable Restorative Materials

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of one-step polishing systems oil the surface roughness of different flowable composites and a microhybrid composite. A total of 120 disks were fabricated and divided into six groups according to the different composite restorative materials tested (n=20). Each group was further divided into four Subgroups according to the polishing system (n=5). For the control group, samples were left undisturbed after removal of Mylar strip. For the other three subgroups, samples were polished with PoGo, OptraPol, or Sof-Lex disks. Surface roughness was determined using a profilometer and observed under scanning electron microscope (SEM). Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test. For Tetric Flow, Grandio Flow, Filtek Supreme XT Flow, and Admira Flow, their lowest surface roughness values were obtained in Mylar Strip and PoGo groups. For Compoglass Flow, there were no significant differences between Mylar Strip, PoGo, and OptraPol. For Filtek Z250, the lowest Surface roughness value was obtained with Mylar Strip. In light of the Surface roughness results obtained, one-step polishing systems seemed to be a good choice for polishing flowable composites.WoSScopu

Shear Bond Strength Of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded Using Conventional Vs One And Two Step Self-Etching/Adhesive Systems

Objective: To assess and compare the effects of one- and two-step self-etching primer and adhesive with conventional acid-etching and bonding system on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Materials and Methods: The one-step self-etching primer and adhesive used was Clearfil tri-S bond, the two-step fluoride-releasing antibacterial self-etching primer and adhesive was Clearfil Protect Bond, and the fluoride-releasing conventional acid-etching and bonding system was Kurasper F Bond. Brackets were bonded to defect-free human premolars (n = 14 per group) according to each manufacturer's recommendations by using light-cured bracket adhesive Kurasper F Paste with a light-emitting diode of a light-curing unit. The specimens were stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C for 48 hours and then tested in shear with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min until the brackets debonded. The mode of failure of the brackets was determined by a modified adhesive remnant index. Results: Mean shear bond strength values were 9.00 MPa for Kurasper F Bond, 9.55 MPa for Clearfil Protect Bond, and 9.48 MPa for Clearfil tri-S Bond. One-way analysis of variance detected no statistically significant difference among groups (P = .98, P > .05). The predominant failure for the three groups was at the bracket-adhesive interface leaving less than 25% of the adhesive on the bracket base. Conclusions: One-step self-etching adhesive and two-step fluoride-releasing antibacterial self-etching adhesive have sufficient mechanical properties for the bonding of orthodontic brackets.Wo

Comparison Of Shear Bond Strengths Of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded With Flowable Composites

This study evaluated the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to human premolars using five different combinations of flowable composites and one-step self-etching adhesives (n=12): (1) Adper Easy Bond+Filtek Supreme XT Flow; (2) Futurabond NR+Grandio Flow: (3) Clearfil S3 Bond+Clearfil Majesty Flow; (4) AdheSE One+Tetric EvoFlow; and (5) Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer+Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive. After shear bond strength testing, adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were given according to the amount of adhesive and resin remaining on the brackets. On shear bond strength, there were no statistically significant differences between Groups 2 and 4 and between Groups 3 and 5 (p > 0.05). On ART scores, the predominant ARI scores in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 5 were 4, 2, 5, and 4 respectively: in Group 4, they were 0 and 4. Results showed that some combinations of flowable composites and self-etching adhesives might not he suitable for orthodontic use due to their low shear bond strengths and high ARI scores-with the latter signaling the risk of damaging the enamel surface during debonding.WoSScopu

Effects of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of esthetic composite resins

Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface roughness of esthetic composite resins finished and polished with 2 different one-step polishing systems and a conventional multi-step disc system. Materials and Method: The evaluated composite resins were: Filtek Ultimate (3M ESPE), Amaris (Voco) and Esthet-X HD (Dentsply). A total of 120 specimens were fabricated in a plexiglass mold covered with a mylar strip. After polymerization, ten specimens per group received no polishing treatment and served as the control group. For each composite resin group (n=30), the specimens were randomly divided into three polishing systems: Enhance (one-step; Dentsply), OptraPol (one-step; Ivoclar Vivadent) and Sof-Lex (multiple-steps; 3M ESPE). All polishing systems were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. The surface roughness values were determined using a profilometer. Data were analyzed using One-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests (α=0.05). Results: The smoothest surfaces were achieved under mylar strips in all composite resin groups (p=0.00) except for Esthet-X HD. For Esthet-X HD, OptraPol exhibited similar roughness values with the control group. For Filtek Ultimate, Sof-Lex exhibited statistically greater surface roughness values compared to other polishing systems (p=0.00). However, in Amaris groups there were no statistically significant differences between the polishing systems (p=0.998). Conclusion: Surface roughness values differ between composite resin materials. For polishing esthetic composite resins, one-step polishing systems may exhibit comparable results with multi-step system

Microleakage and scanning electron microscopy evaluation of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites prepared by erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser and bur

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites in class V cavities prepared by erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser and bur. Class V cavities were prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 72 premolars by Er:YAG laser or bur and divided into six groups (n = 24). The occlusal margins were enamel and the cervical margins were cementum. The groups were as follows: group 1 Er:YAG laser preparation (E) + Xeno V (X) + CeramX (C); group 2 bur preparation (B) + X + C; group 3 E + AdheSE One (A) + Tetric EvoCeram (T); group 4 B + A + T; group 5 E + Clearfil S3 Bond (CSB) + Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (CME); group 6 B + CSB + CME. All teeth were stored in distilled water at 37A degrees C for 24 h, then thermocycled 500 times (5-55A degrees C). Ten teeth from each group were chosen for the microleakage investigation and two teeth for the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation. The teeth that were prepared for the microleakage test were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. After immersion, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (P 0.05). SEM observations of restorative material-dentin interfaces seemed to correspond with those of the microleakage test. Microleakage at the cervical interfaces was greater than that at the occlusal interfaces. Er:YAG laser-prepared class V cavities yielded more microleakage in occlusal margins with all-in-one self-etch adhesives and the respective manufacturer's nanocomposites

Leakage Pathway of Different Nano-Restorative Materials in Class V Cavities Prepared by Er:YAG Laser and Bur Preparation

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of different nano-restorative materials in Class V cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur preparation. Materials and Methods: Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 72 premolars by Er:YAG laser or bur. The occlusal margins were in enamel and the cervical margins were in cementum. Teeth were randomly assigned to six groups of 12 teeth (n = 24 cavities) each as follows: Group 1, Er:YAG laser preparation (E)+Ketac N100 (K); Group 2, bur preparation (B)+K; Group 3, E+Adper Prompt L-Pop (A)+Filtek Supreme XT Flow (FSF); Group 4, B+A+FSF; Group 5, E+A+Filtek Supreme XT (FS); Group 6, B+A+FS. All teeth were thermocycled 500 times. Ten teeth from each group were chosen for the microleakage investigation and two teeth for the scanning electron microscope evaluation. Teeth prepared for the microleakage test were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. Afterwards, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (p 0.05). Conclusion: It may be concluded that the cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser showed higher degree of microleakage than those conventionally prepared by bur, regardless of the restorative material at enamel margins

Microleakage of Class V Cavities with Different Adhesive Systems Prepared by a Diamond Instrument and Different Parameters of Er:YAG Laser Irradiation

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of composite resin restorations using two different dentine adhesive systems prepared with a diamond instrument and different parameters of Er:YAG laser irradiation. Background Data: Information on this topic with regard to preparing class V cavities with different parameters of Er: YAG laser irradiation and adhesive systems is scarce. Materials and Methods: Two hundred class V cavities were assigned to ten groups (n = 20 each): group 1: Er: YAG laser (5 Hz, 600 mJ) + phosphoric acid (PA) + Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB2); group 2: Er: YAG laser (10 Hz, 300 mJ) + PA + ASB2; group 3: Er: YAG laser (15 Hz, 200 mJ) + PA + ASB2; group 4: Er: YAG laser (20 Hz, 150 mJ) + PA + ASB2; group 5: diamond instrument + PA + ASB2; group 6: Er: YAG laser (5 Hz, 600 mJ) + Adper Prompt L-Pop (APLP); group 7: Er: YAG laser (10 Hz, 300 mJ) + APLP; group 8: Er: YAG laser (15 Hz, 200 mJ) + APLP; group 9: Er: YAG laser (20 Hz, 150 mJ) + APLP; and group 10: diamond instrument + APLP. Cavities were restored with a nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme XT Body). After thermocycling, the specimens were stained with 0.5% aqueous basic fuchsin dye and sectioned bucco-lingually. Dye penetration was then scored. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction. The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to compare occlusal and gingival scores. Results: Leakage was seen in all groups at both the occlusal and gingival margins. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistically significant differences among the 10 groups (p 5), 5 and 7 (7 > 5), and 7 and 8 (7 > 8) at the gingival margin, and between groups 3 and 6 (6 > 3), 3 and 7 (7 > 3), 4 and 6 (6 > 4), and 4 and 7 (7 > 4) at the occlusal margin. Conclusion: We concluded that for all groups, microleakage values were higher at the gingival margins. The use of the Er: YAG laser for cavity preparation with different parameters and different dentine adhesive systems influenced the marginal sealing of composite resin restorations