The fracture resistance values of endodontically treated teeth restored with either bulk fill/bulk fill flowable or fiber-reinforced composite were not different from those restored with conventional nanohybrid resin composite.

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the shear bond strengths (SBSs) of two newly marketed self‐adhesive resin cements (RCs) to enamel, dentin, and lithium disilicate (LiSi) glass ceramic block. Forty‐eight enamel and 48 dentin substrates were obtained from sound human molars. Additionally, 6 × 7 × 5 ‐mm‐ sized 24 specimens were produced from LiSi glass ceramic blocks. The tooth specimens were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 12) according to the surface treatments: (1) G‐CEM ONE (GCO), (2) G‐CEM ONE Adhesive Enhancing Primer (GCO‐AEP) + GCO, (3) RelyX Universal (RXU), and (4) Scotchbond Universal Plus (SUP) + RXU. LiSi specimens were randomly divided into two groups (n = 12): (1) G‐MultiPrimer (GMP) + GCO and (2) SUP + RXU. Following the RC applications, all specimens were kept in 100% humidity at 37°C for 24 hr and then submitted for SBS testing in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Data were analyzed by Welch's, one‐way analysis of variance and two independent samples t tests. The nature of failures was examined under a light microscope, and scanning electron microscopy analyses were also performed for interfaces. GCO and RXU showed similar SBS to enamel (p > .05), and the use of adhesives resulted in improved SBS (p < .05). No difference was detected between GCO‐AEP + GCO and SUP + RXU. The GCO‐AEP + GCO exhibited the highest SBS to dentin (p < .05), followed by GCO ≥ SUP + RXU > RXU (p < .05). There was no significant difference between SBSs of two RCs to LiSi blocks (p > .05). No cohesive failure was determined for the tested groups by light microscope. The use of adhesives prior to the application of self‐adhesive RCs improved their bonding to tooth tissues. GCO demonstrated superior SBS to dentin, whereas both self‐adhesive RCs generated similar SBS to enamel and LiSi glass ceramic surfaces.

The antibacterial activity, and the effect of the application of additional topical fluoride on the bacterial activity, biofilm formation, and surface roughness of new-generation hybrid/fluoride-releasing materials were investigated. Two hundred and forty specimens were prepared in split Teflon molds (8 × 2 mm) from a resin composite (as negative control: G-aenial A’Chord/GC), Equia Forte HT Fil(GC), Equia Forte HT Fil+Equia Forte Coat, Riva Self-Cure (SDI), Riva Self-Cure+Equia Forte Coat, Zirconomer (Shofu), Beautifil II (Shofu), and Riva Silver (Shofu). Penicillin G,1U was used as positive control. The antibacterial activity was evaluated by the agar diffusion test immediately after the materials set using Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacillus casei (L. casei), and repeated after application of 0.20% w/w (900 ppm) topical fluoride. The biofilm formation of S. mutans on each material was quantified by crystal violet staining. Surface roughness of the specimens was measured by a profilometer. The data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis, Dunn’s, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey’s HSD tests (p < 0.05). None of the tested restorative materials showed antibacterial activity and no inhibition zones were observed after treatment of the restoratives with additional topical fluoride. There were significant differences among the groups in terms of biofilm formation (p < 0.005). Equia Forte HT Fil with and without coating showed the lowest, while Riva self-cure without coating and Zirconomer showed the highest biofilm accumulation. None of the new-generation hybrid/fluoride-releasing materials demonstrated antibacterial activity and additional topical fluoride application did not make any change. Biofilm formation of the tested materials differed. All tested materials showed different surface roughness values (p < 0.005). Characteristics and compositions of the materials seemed to be more effective than the surface roughness.