The purpose was to investigate the influence of curing devices and curing times on the yellow value (b-value) of composites, ormocers and compomers after performing a suntest (EN ISO 7491). Eight samples of Charisma (CH), Durafill (DU), Definite (DE), and Dyract AP (DY) each were light cured with Translux Energy (tungsten halogen light) for 20, 40 or 60 s and with Apollo 95-E (plasma light) for 3, 10 or 20 s. All samples were subjected to a suntest. Before and after the suntest the yellow values (b-values) were determined and the change (Delta b) was calculated. When cured with Translux Energy for 20 and 40 s DU, CH, and DY revealed significantly negative Delta b-values. The b-value of DE remained nearly constant. When cured for 60 s, DU and DE shifted to more yellow while CH and DY still bleached a little. When cured with Apollo 95-E, a dramatic bleaching process of all materials investigated occurred after the suntest (significant negative Delta b). It may be concluded that the bleaching of composites, ormocers and compomers depends on (i) the used light curing device and (ii) the chosen curing times. The tungsten halogen light provided highly significantly superior results.

Resistance to impact fracture and high flexural strength are desirable properties of denture base acrylics. The purpose of this laboratory study was to determine the Izod impact strength, the flexural strength, the flexural modulus, and the yield distance for four premium denture resins. Bar specimens 86 x 11 x 3 mm of Lucitone 199, Fricke Hi-I, ProBase Hot, and Sledgehammer Maxipack were fabricated following the manufacturer's instructions for heat processing. The bars were surface finished using silicon carbide paper to 600 grit. Ten specimens from three lots of each material were made (n=30). Flexural strength, flexural modulus, and yield distance were determined by testing the specimens to failure using a three-point test fixture. Izod impact strength was determined using an Izod tester on un-notched specimens generated from the flexural test (n=60). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey's test were used for statistical comparison of each property. There were significant differences in the physical properties among the denture acrylics tested. Lucitone 199 demonstrated the highest impact strength, flexural strength, and yield distance (p<0.05). Lucitone 199 with an Izod impact strength of 5.5 ± 1.2 N·m, a flexural strength of 99.5 ± 4.5 MPa, and yield distance of 9.9 ± 0.76 mm exhibited statistically greater results than Fricki Hi-I, ProBase Hot, and Sledgehammer Maxipack. Fricki Hi-I with a yield distance of 7.3 ± 1.1 mm was statically greater than ProBase Hot and Sledgehammer Maxipack. Fricki Hi-I, ProBase Hot, and Sledgehammer Maxipack were statistically similar for the Izod impact strength and flexural strength tests performed. ProBase Hot and Sledgehammer Maxipack yielded statistically similar results for all tests performed. Flexural modulus had an inverse relationship to the impact strength, flexural strength, and yield distance.

Traditionally, etch-and-rinse adhesive systems have used phosphoric acid to condition enamel surfaces and successfully create a strong, durable bond to resin-based materials. Newer adhesive systems now use acid monomers to bond resin materials to both enamel and dentin. These newer adhesives do not provide the same degree of bonding to enamel as etch-and-rinse systems, and extending the application time does not improve their performance. SUMMARYThe current study examined the effect of different enamel conditioning times on surface roughness and bond strength using an etch-and-rinse system and four self-etch adhesives. Surface roughness (Ra) and composite to enamel shear bond strengths (SBS) were determined following the treatment of flat ground human enamel (4000 grit) with five adhesive systems: 1) Adper Single Bond Plus (SBP), 2) Adper Prompt L-Pop (PLP), 3) Clearfil SE Bond (CSE), 4) Clearfil S 3 Bond (CS3) and 5) Xeno IV (X4), using recommended treatment times and an extended treatment time of 60 seconds (n=10/group). Control groups were also included for Ra (4000 grit surface) and SBS (no enamel treatment and Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive). For surface roughness measurements, the phosphoric acid conditioner of the SBP etch-and-rinse system was rinsed from the surface with an air-water spray, and the other four self-etch adhesive agents were removed with alternating rinses of water and acetone. A Proscan 2000 non-contact profilometer was used to determine Ra values. Composite (Z100) to enamel bond strengths (24 hours) were determined using Ultradent fixtures and they were debonded with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and Fisher's LSD post-hoc test. The etch-and-

No abstract

The influence of curing devices and curing times on the color stability of filling resins was investigated by measuring the CIE-Laboratory-values after performing dry storage, water storage, and a Suntest (EN ISO 7491). Eight samples each of Charisma (CH), Durafill (DU), Definite (DE), and Dyract AP (DY) were light cured by using Translux Energy (TE) for 20, 40 or 60 s, or by using Apollo 95E (AP) for 3, 10 or 20 s. Minor color changes occurred for all dry stored materials, devices and curing times. The TE-cured, water-stored samples behaved similarly to the dry-stored ones, but the samples cured with AP revealed very strong color changes, mainly because of a drastic bleaching process. The bleaching of DU was significantly less than that of the other materials, but a strong white shift occurred. CH, DE, and DU showed very little (and even acceptable) discolorations after the Suntest when TE-cured. DY showed a drastically discoloration. All samples cured using AP drastically bleached and shifted to white for DU and DY but to dark for DE. In conclusion, the extent of discoloration depends on (i) the material, (ii) the test method, (iii) curing time, and (iv) the curing device. The halogen light-cured samples performed best.

No abstract

The wear and mechanical properties of the flowable resin composites tested suggested improved performance compared with universal resin composites.

SummaryThe application of resin composites in dentistry has become increasingly widespread due to the increased aesthetic demands of patients, improvements in the formulation of resin composites, and the ability of these materials to bond to tooth structures, together with concerns about dental amalgam fillings. As resistance to wear is an important factor in determining the clinical success of resin composite restoratives, this review article defines what constitutes wear and describes the major underlying phenomena involved in this process. Insights are further included on both in vivo and in vitro tests used to determine the wear resistance of resin composite and the relationships between these tests. The discussion focuses on factors that contribute to the wear of resin composite. Finally, future perspectives are included on both clinical and laboratory tests and on the development of resin composite restorations.