Purpose: This study evaluated the effect of carbonated and non-carbonated beverages, bottled and tap water, on the erosive potential of dental enamel with and without fluoride varnish protection. Materials and Methods: Beverages used in this study included: Coca Cola Classic, Diet Coke, Gatorade sports drink, Red Bull high-energy drink, Starbucks Frappuccino coffee drink, Dasani water (bottled), and tap water (control). Enamel surfaces were coated with Cavity Shield 5% sodium fluoride treatment varnish. Twenty-eight previously extracted human posterior teeth free of hypocalcification and caries were used in this study. The coronal portion of each tooth was removed and then sectioned transverse from the buccal to lingual surface using a diamond coated saw blade. The crown sections were embedded in acrylic resin blocks leaving the enamel surfaces exposed. The enamel surfaces were polished using 600 to 2000 grit abrasive paper and diamond paste. Test specimens were randomly distributed to seven beverage groups and comprised 4 specimens per group. Two specimens per beverage group were treated with a fluoride varnish while 2 specimens did not receive fluoride coating. Surface roughness (profilometer) readings were performed at baseline (prior to fluoride treatment and immersion in the beverage) and again, following immersion for 14 days (24 hours/day). The test beverages were changed daily and the enamel specimens were immersed at 37° C. Surface roughness data was evaluated using multiple factor ANOVA at a significance level of p<0.05. Results: Results showed that Coca-Cola Classic, Gatorade and Red Bull with/without fluoride revealed the highest post-treatment surface roughness measurements. Coca-Cola Classic, Diet Coke, Gatorade, and Red Bull all showed significantly higher post treatment readings than StarBucks coffee, Dasani water, and tap water. Fluoride varnish was not a significant impact factor; however, beverage (type) and exposure time were significant impact variables. Conclusion: Both carbonated and non-carbonated beverages displayed a significant erosive effect on dental enamel; however, fluoride varnish treatments did not demonstrate a significant protective influence on enamel surfaces.

Surface sealants, when applied to Class V resin composite restorations, can contribute to a significant reduction in microleakage, thus enhancing marginal integrity. SUMMARYThis study evaluated, in vitro, the effectiveness of 5 surface sealants (Biscover, Optiguard, Seal-nShine, PermaSeal and DuraFinish); 1 pit and fissure sealant (Helioseal) and 1 dentin bonding agent (Adper Scotchbond MultiPurpose Adhesive) on the marginal sealing ability of Class V hybrid resin composite (Esthet•X) restorations. Ninety-six non-carious human molars were randomly assigned to 8 groups (n=12). Class V cavities were prepared on either the facial or lingual surfaces, with coronal margins in enamel and apical margins in cementum (dentin), and restored following manufacturers' instructions. Following finishing and polishing procedures, the covering agents were applied to each restoration and adjacent tooth surface, except for the control group restorations, which were not sealed. The teeth were thermocycled, immersed in a 1% methylene blue dye solution, sectioned and analyzed for dye penetration (leakage) using a 20x binocular microscope. Microleakage was evaluated at the coronal and apical margins using an 0-3 ordinal grading scale. Non-parametric data was analyzed at a p≤0.05 level of significance. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference was exhibited among groups at the coronal margins, with Helioseal pit/fissure sealant and DuraFinish surface sealant exhibiting significantly less leakage than the control and Adper Scotchbond MultiPurpose adhesive. At the apical margins, DuraFinish surface sealant showed significantly less leakage than the Biscover, Seal-n-Shine and PermaSeal surface sealants or Helioseal pit/fissure sealant, Adper Scotchbond MultiPurpose adhesive and the control group. According to the Wicoxon signed-rank test, significantly greater leakage was revealed at the apical margins compared to the enamel margins of the material groups.

Decreased leakage was associated with Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (total etch) and iBond (self-etch) systems in Class V resin composite restorations. All adhesive systems performed best when bonded to enamel compared to dentin surface anatomy. Clinicians should be aware that strict adherence to manufacturer instructions, when using these materials, is of primary importance. SUMMARYThis study evaluated microleakage in vitro of selfetch and multi-step, total-etch adhesive systems. Ninety-six extracted non-carious human molars were randomly assigned to eight groups (n=12) and restored with different adhesive systems: Optibond Solo Plus, iBond, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Xeno III, Simplicity, Nano-Bond, Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose and Touch & Bond. Each group was treated following the manufacturer's instructions. Class V cavities were prepared on the facial or lingual surfaces of each tooth with coronal margins in enamel and apical margins in cementum (dentin). The teeth were restored with Z-100 resin composite. After polishing with Sof-Lex disks, the teeth were thermocycled for 1000 cycles and coated with nail varnish to within 1.0 mm of the restoration. The teeth were stained in 1% methylene blue dye for 24 hours and sectioned from the facial to lingual surface. Dye penetration (microleakage) was examined with a 20x binocular microscope. Enamel and dentin margin leakage was scored on a 0 to 3 ordinal scale. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance and Mann-Whitney U tests. Comparison of the adhesive groups at the enamel margin revealed: 1) Adper Scotchbond MultiPurpose exhibited significantly less leakage than the other adhesive groups (except iBond); 2) among the self-etch adhesive groups, iBond exhibited significantly less leakage than Nano-Bond and 3) the other adhesive groups clustered intermediately. In contrast, there were no significant differences among the adhesive groups when the dentin margin was evaluated. A Wilcoxin signed rank test showed significantly less leakage at the enamel margins compared to the dentin margins of the eight adhesive systems tested. All data were submitted to statistical analysis at p<0.05 level of significance.

Using scanning electron and light microscopy, this study qualitatively evaluated the erosive potential of carbonated cola beverages as well as sports and high-energy drinks on enamel surface substrate. Methods and Materials: Beverages used in this study included: Coca Cola Classic ® , Diet Coke ® , Gatorade ® sports drink, Red Bull ® high-energy drink, and tap water (control). Extracted human permanent molars free of hypocalcification and/or caries were used in this study. The coronal portion of each tooth was removed and sectioned longitudinally from the buccal to the lingual surface. The crown sections were embedded in acrylic resin, leaving the enamel surfaces exposed. Following finishing and polishing of all surfaces, one side was covered with red nail varnish while the remaining side was exposed to individual beverage immersion for 14 days, 24 hours per day, at 37°C. The specimens were evaluated for enamel surface changes using scanning electron and light microscopy. Results: Enamel specimens exhibited visual surface changes following immersion in the test beverages with Red Bull ® and Gatorade ® revealing the most striking surface morphological changes. Specimens subjected to Coca Cola Classic ® and Diet Coke ® immersion also displayed irregular post-treatment surface morphology. Conclusions: As verified by microscopic evaluation, all test beverages displayed enamel dissolution in the following order: Red Bull ® >Gatorade ® >Coca-Cola Classic ® >Diet Coke ® .

According to the results of this study, the materials (SonicFill vs Herculite Ultra), C-factors, and insertion techniques (bulk vs incremental) did not appear to be significant influences with regard to marginal microleakage; however, the type of preparation cavity (Class I vs Class II) and the subsequent bonding surface (enamel vs dentin [cementum]) proved to be significant factors.