SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Class II restorations of a high-viscosity glass ionomer material, of a bulk-fill composite resin, and of a microhybrid composite resin. Methods and Materials: One hundred nine Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC; a conventional composite resin), Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF; a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite), and Equia Forte Fil (EF; a high-viscosity glass ionomer). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany) was used for both conventional and bulk-fill composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The data were analyzed using the chi-square, Fisher, and McNemar tests. Results: Eighty-four restorations were evaluated at two-year recalls. There were clinically acceptable changes in composite resin restorations (FBF and CSC). In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials in terms of all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the EF group and the FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity (p<0.05). Conclusions: The tested bulk-fill and conventional composite resins showed acceptable clinical performance in Class II cavities. However, if EF is to be used for Class II restoration, its use should be carefully considered.

Bulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving. Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II restorations. Methodology: In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests. Results: At the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0.05). Conclusion: Bulk-fill composite resins and conventional composite resins showed more successful clinical performance than highly viscous reinforced glass ionomers in Class II cavities.

This study compared the cyclic fatigue resistance (CFR) of three controlled memory (CM) nickel-titanium rotary files (One Curve, EdgeFile and HyFlex CM) in comparison with a file (ProTaper Next) made from M-wire nickel-titanium alloy at two different temperatures (room and intracanal) in an s-shaped canal. One hundred and sixty files were tested to determine the CFR of One-Curve, EdgeFile, HyFlex CM and ProTaper Next in an artificial canal at room and at intracanal temperature. The number of cycles to failure was recorded, and data were analysed. At both temperatures, ProTaper Next exhibited the lowest CFR compared with the other files (P < 0.05). At room temperature, there was no difference among the three CM files regarding CFR (P > 0.05). At intracanal temperature, OneCurve and EdgeFile exhibited more CFR than the HyFlex CM (P < 0.05). Testing at intracanal temperature caused a significant decrease in CFR of all tested files compared with testing at room temperature.

Aim:This study aims to investigate the adhesive performance of three different universal adhesives to repair aged composite restorations, with or without the application of silane.Materials and Methods:A hundred and twenty resin composite samples were prepared, aged and randomly divided into 6 main Groups (single bond universal [SBU], All-Bond Universal [ABU], Futurabond U, Clearfil Tri-S Bond, Single Bond 2, and Clearfil SE Bond) and 2 subgroups (with or without silane). A microhybrid composite resin was placed on the aged composite surfaces and light cured. After a micro-shear bonding test, the fracture surfaces were examined under the scanning electron microscopy. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests.Results:Among all the universal adhesives, SBU showed the highest bond strength values compared to the other two universal adhesives when used with and without silane (P > 0.05). Between ABU and Futurabond U, no significant difference was observed with silane (P > 0.05) and without silane (P > 0.05). Among conventional adhesives, there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) both with and without silane.Conclusion:Within the limitations of this study, while SBU can be safely used with and without the application of silane, Futurabond U cannot be used without silane.

Aim:The aim of this study was to investigate the adhesive performance of three different universal adhesives to repair aged amalgam by composite resins with or without Alloy Primer.Materials and Methods:Sixty amalgam samples were prepared, aged, and randomly divided into 12 main groups according to adhesive procedures used. Composite buildups were placed on amalgam surfaces. After micro-shear bonding test, the fracture surfaces were examined under the scanning electron microscopy statistical analysis was performed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc tests.Results:Without use of Alloy Primer, all of the universal adhesives provided similar bond strength values with conventional adhesives (P > 0.05); however, an Alloy Primer significantly increased the bond strength values of universal adhesives (P < 0.05). No significant difference in bond strength values was noted for conventional adhesives with or without Alloy Primer (P > 0.05) except for Clearfil SE Bond (P < 0.05).Conclusions:Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded; using Alloy Primer before universal adhesives increased the bond strength significantly.

No abstract

This study investigated the effect of different coronal restorations on the fracture resistance (FR) of immature teeth with simulated regenerative endodontic treatment. A total of 120 lower premolars were divided into eight groups. Except for negative control, the root canals were instrumented with rotary files and Peeso reamers. Fifteen instrumented teeth were acted as positive control (unrestorated). In the remaining 90 teeth, regenerative endodontic treatment procedures were performed. Ninety teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups according to coronal restoration type; Filtek Z550, Filtek Bulk fill Restorative (FBR), SDR+Filtek Z550, EverX+Filtek Z550, Ribbond+FBR and Rib-bond+SDR+Filtek Z550. After thermal ageing, the restorated teeth were subjected to vertical loading force. FR values was obtained as follows: Negative control > Ribbond+FBR = Ribbond+SDR+Filtek Z550 > Filtek Z550 = FBR = SDR+Filtek Z550 = EverX+Filtek Z550 > Positive control, (P < 0.05). The use of Ribbond in combination with composite resin enhanced the FR of teeth.

No abstract