The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness (Ra), and the morphology and composition of filler particles of different composites submitted to toothbrushing and water storage. Disc‐shaped specimens (15 mm × 2 mm) were made from five composites: two conventional (Z100™, and Filtek™ Supreme Ultra Universal, 3M), one “quick‐cure” (Estelite ∑ Quick, Tokuyama), one fluoride‐releasing (Beautiful II, Shofu), and one self‐adhering (Vertise Flow, Kerr) composite. Samples were finished/polished using aluminum oxide discs (Sof‐Lex, 3M), and their surfaces were analyzed by profilometry (n = 5) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM; n = 3) at 1 week and after 30,000 toothbrushing cycles and 6‐month water storage. Ra data were analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Filler particles morphology and composition were analyzed by SEM and X‐ray dispersive energy spectroscopy, respectively. Finishing/polishing resulted in similar Ra for all the composites, while toothbrushing and water storage increased the Ra of all the tested materials, also changing their surface morphology. Beautifil II and Vertise Flow presented the highest Ra after toothbrushing and water storage. Filler particles were mainly composed of silicon, zirconium, aluminum, barium, and ytterbium. Size and morphology of fillers, and composition of the tested composites influenced their Ra when samples were submitted to toothbrushing and water storage.

No abstract

Not all of the blue-emitting lights deliver the same emission spectra, and some curing lights delivered a lower irradiance (as much as 8% lower) after the 25th exposure.

The microtensile bond strength (μTBS), nanoleakage expression (NL), and endogenous enzymatic activity of a simplified universal adhesive system used in combination with a dual-cure resin cement for luting indirect restorations were evaluated considering its shelf-life (as-received vs expired). The universal adhesive was used asreceived (AS-R) by manufacturer or after three months after being expired (EXP). Resin composite overlays (n ¼ 10) were luted to flat deep coronal dentin surfaces with a universal bonding system (iBond universal, used in the self-etch mode) in combination with a dual-cure resin cement (RelyX Ultimate; 20s of light-cure followed by 15 min of self-cure at 37 � C). After 24 h, the specimens were cut into microtensile sticks (1 mm 2 ) and stressed to failure under tension, in accordance with ISO/TS 11.405. The fracture pattern was evaluated with optical microscopy. The significance level of p ¼ 0.05 was used for the statistical analysis. Additional specimens (n ¼ 4) were processed for quantitative interfacial nanoleakage expression using ammoniacal silver nitrate. To investigate the endogenous enzymatic activity within the hybrid layer in situ zymography was performed. The EXP group obtained significantly lower μTBS values than those recorded in the AS-R group (p < 0.05). NL resulted in higher deposition of AgNO 3 granules when the adhesive was used in the EXP group compared to the AS-R bonding system. In situ zymography assay revealed increased level of fluorescence when the universal bonding system was used at the end of shelf-life compared to the AS-R group. The use of the universal adhesive system beyond the expiry limit resulted in decreased bonding performances. Furthermore, the higher endogenous enzymatic activity recorded after the end of the shelf life of the universal adhesive would portend for a shortened durability of the restorations.

Objective This study comprehensively reviewed clinical trials that investigated the effect of immediate dentin sealing (IDS) technique on postoperative sensitivity (POS) and clinical performance of indirect restorations. Materials and methods The systematic review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses statement, and was guided by the PICOS strategy. Clinical trials in which adult patients received at least one indirect restoration cemented with IDS approach and one restoration cemented following the delayed dentin sealing (DDS) were considered. Results Following title screening and full‐text reading, four studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for qualitative synthesis, while two studies were selected for quantitative synthesis. According to Risk of bias‐2 tool, two studies were classified as “some concerns” for the outcome POS. No statistically significant differences were found between teeth restored with indirect restorations using the IDS and DDS approach for POS (p > 0.05), neither at the baseline (very low certainty of evidence according to GRADE) nor after 2 years of follow‐up (low certainty of evidence according to GRADE). Conclusion There is low‐certainty evidence that IDS does not reduce POS in teeth restored with indirect restorations. Clinical significance There is no clinical evidence to favor IDS over DDS when restoring teeth with indirect restorations.

This study evaluated dentin bond strength (BS) and nanoleakage of non- and pre-etched dentin immediately (T ,), 7 days (T ), and 14 days (T ) after bleaching. Bovine incisors (150) were selected and half of them submitted to intrapulpal dentin etching (e). Non- and pre-etched dentin were subjected to the following (n = 15): no bleaching/control (C); 35% carbamide peroxide (CP); 35% hydrogen peroxide (35% HP); 25% hydrogen peroxide (25% HP); and sodium perborate (SP). Bleaching agents were applied to the pulp chamber four times within a 72-h interval. Afterwards, pulp chamber dentin was prepared for the BS test at different evaluation times (n = 5): T , T , and T . Composite blocks were built on pulp chamber and sectioned in slices. Slices were reduced to an hour-glass shape with a cross-sectional area of 0.8 mm and submitted to microtensile BS test. Two additional specimens for each group were prepared for nanoleakage evaluation by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Results were analyzed by ANOVA (two-way) and Dunnett's test (p < .05). BS decreased immediately after intracoronal bleaching for both sound and pre-etched dentin (p < .05). At T , the BS of non-etched bleached dentin increased for all groups, whereas the pre-etched SPe group presented BS similar to the Ce. Nanoleakage within the hybrid layer was perceptible immediately after bleaching, although a decrease in nanoleakage was observed for all groups at T . Adhesive restorations should be performed 7-14 days after bleaching, according to the bleaching agent used. Intracoronal bleaching should be performed preferably with sodium perborate if previous dentin etching is applied.

The effects of tooth brushing could affect the long-term esthetic outcome of composite restorations. This study evaluated the effect of two different emission spectrum light-curing units on the surface roughness, roughness profile, topography and microhardness of bulk-fill composites after in vitro toothbrushing. Valo (multiple-peak) and Demi Ultra (single-peak) curing lights were each used for 10s to polymerize three bulk-fill resin composites: Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TET) and Surefil SDR Flow (SDR). After 30,000 reciprocal strokes in a toothbrushing machine, the roughness profile, surface roughness, surface morphology, and microhardness were examined. Representative SEM images were also obtained. When light-cured with the Demi Ultra, SDR showed the most loss in volume compared to the other composites and higher volume loss compared to when was light-cured with Valo. The highest surface roughness and roughness profile values were found in SDR after toothbrushing, for both light-curing units tested. FBF always had the greatest microhardness values. Light-curing TET with Valo resulted in higher microhardness compared to when using the Demi Ultra. Confocal and SEM images show that toothbrushing resulted in smoother surfaces for FBF and TET. All composites exhibited surface volume loss after toothbrushing. The loss in volume of SDR depended on the light-curing unit used. Toothbrushing can alter the surface roughness and superficial aspect of some bulk-fill composites. The choice of light-curing unit did not affect the roughness profile, but, depending on the composite, it affected the microhardness.

No abstract