Objective:To investigate the effect of beverages’ temperature on the surface roughness, hardness, and color stability of a composite resin.Materials and Methods:Fifty specimens of the Filtek Z250 composite (3M ESPE, Dental Products, St.Paul, MN, USA) were prepared and initial roughness, microhardness, and color were measured. Then the specimens were randomly divided into five groups of 10 specimens each: Coffee at 70°C, coffee at 37°C, cola at 10°C, cola at 37°C, and artificial saliva (control). After the samples were subjected to 15 min × 3 cycles per day of exposure to the solutions for 30 days, the final measurements were recorded.Results:After immersion in beverages, the artificial saliva group showed hardness values higher than those of the other groups (P < 0.001) and the microhardness values were significantly different from the initial values in all groups except for the control group. Both cola groups showed roughness values higher than the baseline values (P < 0.05), while the other groups showed values similar to the baseline measurements. When ΔE measurements were examined, the 70°C coffee group showed the highest color change among all the groups (P < 0.05).Conclusion:High-temperature solutions caused alterations in certain properties of composites, such as increased color change, although they did not affect the hardness or roughness of the composite resin material tested.

Restorations placed with bulk-filling technique with x-tra base lining and incremental technique with a conventional flowable lining showed highly clinical performance over 3-year period.

The use of silorane-based composites and the placement of RMGIC liner under the composite resin restorations resulted in significantly reduced cuspal deflection.

The clinical performance of fissure sealants placed after acid or Er,Cr:YSGG laser etching was similar.

The use of RMGIC liner with composite resin restorations reduces microleakage. The silorane-based composite showed lower volumetric polymerization shrinkage than methacrylate-based composites. SUMMARYAim: To determine the volumetric polymerization shrinkage of four different types of composite resin and to evaluate microleakage of these materials in class II (MOD) cavities with and without a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner, in vitro.Materials and Methods: One hundred twentyeight extracted human upper premolar teeth were used. After the teeth were divided into eight groups (n=16), standardized MOD cavities were prepared. Then the teeth were restored with different resin composites (Filtek Supreme XT, Filtek P 60, Filtek Silorane, Filtek Z 250) with and without a RMGIC liner (Vitrebond). The restorations were finished and polished after 24 hours. Following thermocycling, the teeth were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, then midsagitally sectioned in a mesiodistal plane and examined for microleakage using a stereomicroscope. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage of materials was measured using a video imaging device (Acuvol, Bisco, Inc). Data were statistically analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and MannWhitney U-tests.Results: All teeth showed microleakage, but placement of RMGIC liner reduced microleakage. No statistically significant differences were found in microleakage between the teeth restored without RMGIC liner (p.0.05). Filtek Silorane showed significantly less volumetric polymerization shrinkage than the methacrylate-based composite resins (p,0.05).Conclusion: The use of RMGIC liner with both silorane-and methacrylate-based composite resin restorations resulted in reduced microleakage. The volumetric polymerization

Etch-and-rinse adhesive systems can be a better choice for ensuring the long-term success of fissure sealants. SUMMARYAim: To compare the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 48 months.Materials and Methods: The authors enrolled 244 teeth, each with no restoration or sealant and no detectable caries, from 16 patients. The sealants were placed with Solobond M twostep etch-and-rinse adhesive or Futurabond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = completely retained, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. The

No abstract

SUMMARYObjective: This clinical study compared the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 24 months.Methods: Two-hundred and forty-four sealants were placed on the permanent premolars and molars of 16 subjects who had no restorations or sealants present on the fissures and no detectable caries. The sealants were placed with either SoloBond M two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or FuturaBond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists, using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Clinical evaluations were done at baseline and at 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, 18-and 24-month recalls. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently Clinical RelevanceThe use of an etch-and-rinse adhesive prior to the placement of sealants yielded better retention than did the use of a self-etch adhesive. AR Yazici • E Karaman • M Baseren D Tuncer • E Yazici • S Ünlüerevaluated the sealants. Evaluation of the sealants on every follow-up visit involved visual examination with the aid of a dental explorer and an intra-oral mirror. Each sealant was evaluated with the following criteria: 1= completely retained; 2= partial loss; 3= total loss. The Pearson Chi-square test was used to evaluate differences in the retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period.Results: For the 12-month recalls, complete retention rates of 89.3% for the SoloBond M group and 20.5% for the FuturaBond NR group were observed. Sixteen of the 244 restorations were unavailable after 12 months. At 24 months, a total loss of 9 sealants in the SoloBond M group and 84 in the FuturaBond NR group were observed, resulting in retention rates of 81.6% and 15.8%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in retention rates between the SoloBond M and FuturaBond NR groups in all periods of evaluation (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference between the retention rates for premolars and molars was found at each evaluation period (p>0.05). There was no new caries formation throughout the 24-month recall period.Conclusion: Fissure sealants placed with etchand-rinse adhesive showed better retention rates than those placed with self-etch adhesive.