Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation and microleakage of class V cavities restored with conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and bioactive ionic resin (BIR) restorative materials after 6 months of water storage. Materials and Methods One hundred twenty standardized class V cavities (2 mm deep, 4 mm in width, and 3 mm in height) were prepared in sound extracted human molar teeth, where the coronal margins were in enamel while the cervical margins were in dentin. Three glass ionomer-based restorations were tested (n = 40): GIC (Equia Fil), RMGI (Fuji II LC), and BIR (ACTIVA Bioactive Restorative). Half of the teeth from each group (n = 20) were evaluated for their marginal adaptation with scanning electron microscopy and the other half submitted to dye penetration test to examine microleakage. Further division for each subgroup (n = 10) occurred to be tested immediately, while the remaining teeth were examined after keeping for 6 months and thermocycling. Statistical analysis The outcomes were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests. Results No statistically significant differences were observed among the three studied restorative materials. However, the differences were statistically significant in microleakage test between enamel and dentin and after water aging. Conclusion All tested restorative materials exhibited the same marginal adaptation and microleakage. Dentin substrate revealed greater microleakage than enamel, especially with BIR restorative material. Water aging had a negative effect on RMGI with respect to microleakage.

No abstract

No abstract

Premolar teeth restored with zirconia ceramic inlays and onlays exhibited fracture resistance comparable to intact teeth.

No abstract

SUMMARY Aim To evaluate and compare the effects of both manual and ultrasonic scaling on surface roughness of four different base materials, used for elevating dentin/cementum gingival margins of proximal cavities. Methods and Materials Eighty human upper molars with compound Class II mesial cavities, with gingival margins 1 mm below the cemento–enamel junction (CEJ), were divided into four different groups according to the type of the base material used; resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), glass hybrid (HV-GIC), flowable bulk-fill resin composite (Bulk Flow) and bioactive ionic resin (Activa). This was followed by completing the restorations with the same resin composite. All materials were used according to the manufacturers’ instructions. All groups were further subdivided into two subgroups according to the scaling technique: manual (hand) or ultrasonic. All restorative and scaling procedures were performed after fixation of specimens with acrylic beside neighboring teeth to simulate natural contact. The mean surface roughness (Ra, μm) of all specimens was measured quantitatively and qualitatively by a three-dimensional (3D) surface analyzer system at two stages; (1) after thermal cycling for 5000 cycles without scaling and (2) after scaling. Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey post hoc tests, and paired sample t-tests (at α=0.05). Results For baseline readings, the Bulk Flow group had the lowest Ra values, while HV-GIC group had the highest. RMGI and Activa groups had no statistical significant difference between their Ra values (p>0.05). For post scaling readings, hand scaling had significantly lower Ra values than ultrasonic scaling in all the material groups (p<0.05), except in the Bulk Flow group, where both scaling methods were not significantly different from each other (p>0.05) Conclusion Bulk Flow had the smoothest surfaces when cured against a matrix band compared with the other tested base materials. When hand and ultrasonic scaling methods were compared, the latter technique had more detrimental effect on the surface texture of the four tested base materials.

Purpose: Bacterial adhesion represents the initial step in biofilm formation, dental caries and decay. This study aimed to evaluate and compare surface roughness and bacterial adhesion to bulk fill resin composites polished with different systems. Methods: Filtek Z350 XT (Incremental-fill resin composite), Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior (Bulk-fill resin composite), and Tetric N Ceram (Bulk-fill resin composite) were used as resin composites. The polishing systems used in this study were Sof-Lex multi-step, PoGo one step, and Mylar strip. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to examine the surface roughness and adhesion of Streptococcus mutans ATCC 25175 standard strain to bulk-fill resin composites. Results: The type of restorative materials did not affect the surface roughness or bacterial adhesion (p > 0.05) but the polishing systems were significant (p < 0.05) influencing factors. Furthermore, Pearson correlation revealed a statistically significant (p < 0.001) association (R = 0.943) between surface roughness and bacterial adhesion to the tested surfaces. Conclusion: Regardless of the restorative material, Mylar polishing system revealed the smoothest surface and the lowest adhesion of S. mutans as compared to Pogo one step and Sof-Lex multi-step polishing systems.

Background The blending ability of universal shade composites and their stability in the oral environment are of great concern in restoring anterior teeth. This study aims to evaluate and compare the color stability and surface roughness of two single-shade composite restorations, ormocer-based composite (OBC) and methacrylate resin-based composite (RBC), after storing them in different staining media. Materials and methods In this study, two universal shade composite restorative materials were tested: a nanohybrid OBC (Admira fusion X-tra, Voco) and a supra-nanofilled RBC (Omnichroma, Toukyama). In total, 60 cylindrical centralized cavities (diameter: 5 mm, depth: 2 mm) were prepared in sound extracted-human central incisors and divided into two equal groups according to the restorative material used (n = 30). According to the storage media, the teeth of each group were divided into three subgroups (n = 10): artificial saliva, black tea, and cola. The restoration color was evaluated for all teeth at baseline and after four weeks of storage. The color stability (∆E) was measured using a reflective spectrophotometer (X-Rite, model RM200QC, Neu-Isenburg, Germany). The surface roughness (Ra) was evaluated using three-dimensional optical profilometry (Wyko, Model NT 1100, Veeco, Tucson, USA). Additionally, the extracted data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), one-way ANOVA and Student’s t-test. Results In the baseline evaluation, there were no statistically significant differences with respect to color matching or surface roughness results between the two studied restorative materials. However, the differences were statistically significant after storing them in different media. Conclusion Universal composites showed satisfactory color matching with different teeth colors and accepted surface smoothness, whereas the aging procedure exerted a negative effect on their color stability and surface characteristics.