No abstract

This study clinically evaluated the alteration of color, color stability, dental sensitivity and gingival irritation on patients undergoing dental bleaching using varying bleaching methods and light-activation sources. According to pre-established criteria, 40 patients were selected and randomly divided into four groups (n=10): Group 1--35% Hydrogen Peroxide (HP); Group 2--35% HP plus Halogen Curing Light XL 3000 (3M/ESPE); Group 3--35% HP plus Demetron LED (Kerr) and Group 4--35% HP plus LED/LASER (Bio-art). For all groups, there were two sessions of bleaching with 35% HP, with a one week break between sessions. At each bleaching session, three applications of the bleaching gel were used. Two methods of shade evaluation were performed before and after the first week, second week, first month and after six months of the bleaching treatment. These methods were VITA Easyshade Spectrophotometer and Vita Classical Shade Guide. Statistical analysis using ANOVA demonstrated equality between the participating groups when evaluating the group and time variables. The In-Office dental bleaching treatments of vital teeth with 35% HP did not prove to be more effective when light sources were used. There was no difference in color stability between groups until the sixth month of evaluation.

Objectives To address contemporary concepts in adhesive dental materials with emphasis on the evidence behind their clinical use. Overview Adhesive dentistry has undergone major transformations within the last 20 years. New dental adhesives and composite resins have been launched with special focus on their user‐friendliness by reducing the number of components and/or clinical steps. The latest examples are universal adhesives and universal composite resins. While clinicians prefer multipurpose materials with shorter application times, the simplification of clinical procedures does not always result in the best clinical outcomes. This review summarizes the current evidence on adhesive restorative materials with focus on universal adhesives and universal composite resins. Conclusions (a) Although the clinical behavior of universal adhesives has exceeded expectations, dentists still need to etch enamel to achieve durable restorations; (b) there is no clinical evidence to back some of the popular adjunct techniques used with dental adhesives, including glutaraldehyde‐based desensitizers and matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors; and (c) the color adaptation potential of new universal composite resins has simplified their clinical application by combining multiple shades without using different translucencies of the same shade. Clinical Significance New adhesive restorative materials are easier to use than their predecessors, while providing excellent clinical outcomes without compromising the esthetic quality of the restorations.

The results of this in vitro study show that digital impressions made with the Lava(TM) C.O.S. system and its digital workflow are suitable for fabricating four-unit zirconia frameworks, with regard to marginal and internal fit requirements.

The results show that surface treatment is important for resin adhesion to ceramic and suggestthat silane treatment was the main factor responsible for resin bonding to ceramic.