The different types of restorative materials tested were not able to protect adjacent enamel from erosion. Thus, the ability of a restorative material to prevent tooth erosion should not be considered when choosing a material. SUMMARYThis in vitro study evaluated the effect of erosive pH cycling on the percentage of surface microhardness change (%SMHC) and wear of different restorative materials and bovine enamel restored with these materials. Eighty enamel specimens were randomly divided into eight groups according to the restorative materials and immersion media used: GI/GV-resin-modified glass-ionomer, GII/GVI-conventional glassionomer, GIII/GVII-resin composite and GIV/GVIII-amalgam. Over a period of seven days, groups GI to GIV were immersed in a cola drink (ERO) for 5 minutes, 3x/day and kept in artificial saliva between erosive cycles. Groups GV to GVIII were immersed in artificial saliva (SAL) throughout the entire experimental period (control). Data were tested for significant differences using ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p<0.05). For %SMHC, considering the restorative materials, no significant differences were detected among the materials and immersion media. Mean wear was higher for the resin modified glass ionomer cement when compared to conventional cement, but those materials did not significantly differ from the others. For enamel analyses, erosive pH cycling promoted higher wear and %SMHC compared to saliva. There were no significant differences in wear and %SMHC of enamel around the different restorative materi-

This in vitro study evaluated the effect of a prolonged erosive pH cycling on the superficial microhardness change (SMHC) and the erosive wear of different restorative materials. Eighty enamel specimens with prepared cavities of 1.5 x 1.5 mm were randomly divided into eight groups according to the restorative materials used for the fillings (RMGI - resin-modified glass-ionomer, CGI - conventional glass-ionomer, CR- composite resin, A - amalgam) and immersion media used (ERO - erosive medium or SAL - artificial saliva). During 35 days, half of the specimens were immersed in a cola drink (ERO), for 5 min, three times a day, and they remained in SAL between the erosive cycles. The other half of the specimens was immersed in SAL only, for the entire experimental period (control). Data were tested for significant differences by anova and Tukey's tests (P < 0.05). Scanning electron microscopy images were made to illustrate the enamel erosive wear and restorative materials alterations. The mean SMHC (%) and mean erosive wear (mum) of the materials were: RMGI-ERO (30/0.5); CGI-ERO (37/0.5); CR-ERO (-0.3/0.3); A-ERO (-4/0.3); RMGI-SAL (4/0.4); CGI-SAL (-6/0.4); CR-SAL (-3/0.2) and A-SAL (2/0.4). Scanning electron microscopy images showed pronounced enamel erosive wear on groups submitted to erosive pH cycling when compared with groups maintained in saliva. In conclusion, the prolonged pH cycling promoted significantly higher alterations (SMHC and erosive wear) on the glass-ionomer cements than the CR and amalgam.

No abstract

Glass ionomer based materials are clinically popular in several areas of restorative dentistry, but restoration of cervical lesions has proven particularly successful. Various etiologies, conformations, locations and structural characteristics make non-carious cervical lesions more challenging to adhesive restorative procedures and marginal seal in the long run. Due to their characteristics, glass ionomer cements (GICs) have precise indication for these cases. Moreover, the use of a GIC base underneath composite resin, the so-called "sandwich" or mixed technique, allows associating the good characteristics of composite resins and GICs, and has been considered quite useful in the restoration of non-carious cervical defects. The aim of this paper is to critically review the literature and discuss peculiar features of GICs regarding their role in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions.

Objectives:The aim of this study was to investigate the superficial texture of composite restorations after different bleaching protocols.Methods:Filtek Supreme (S), Filtek Z350 (F), and Grandio (G) were compared to Opallis (O) and Filtek Z250 (Z) (control microhybrid composites) and to bovine enamel using three different bleaching agents: 35% hydrogen peroxide Whiteness HP (WHP), 35% Whiteness HP MAXX (WMAXX) and 16% carbamide peroxide Whiteness Standard (WS). Six specimens from each composite were treated using each bleaching agent, according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Three random sites were measured for superficial roughness (Hommel Tester T 1000) weekly for each sample. Data were analyzed for each bleaching system using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests at 5% significance level.Results:WHP treatment significantly altered the Filtek Supreme composite over time. When WMAXX was used, Grandio displayed the most significant alterations in surface roughness throughout the evaluation period, which was not observed for the other nanocomposites. Using WS, Filtek Z250 presented significant surface alterations over time, which was not seen in the nanofilled materials.Conclusions:Surface roughness alteration was material and time-dependent. The bleaching gels affected nanofilled and microhybrid composite resins. Enamel was the surface less affected by bleaching.