No abstract

Abstract'Adhesive' restorative dentistry originated with the work of Buonocore in 1955 in bonding resin to etched enamel. Since then, adhesive materials and techniques have developed at a rapid rate. The first chemically adhesive material (zinc polycarboxylate cement) was marketed in the late 1960s, and glassionomer cements and dentine bonding agents have since become available. This review focuses on the latter two products. Glass-ionomer cements have a particular role in adhesive dentistry because of their reliable chemical adhesion to enamel and dentine, and because of their apparent ability to promote the remineralization of 'affected' dentine. Dentine bonding agents have undergone marked changes in presentation over the last 15 years, but all have an essentially similar bonding system, that of hybrid layer formation. However, the most recent systems have limited clinical data supporting their use.

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this review was to compile recent evidence related to nanofilled resin composite materials regarding the properties and clinical performance. Special attention was given to mechanical properties, such as strength, hardness, abrasive wear, water sorption, and solubility. The clinical performance of nanocomposite materials compared with hybrid resin composites was also addressed in terms of retention and success rates, marginal adaptation, color match, and surface roughness. A search of English peer-reviewed dental literature (2003-2017) from PubMed and MEDLINE databases was conducted using the terms "nanocomposites" or "nanofilled resin composite" and "clinical evaluation." The list was screened, and 82 papers that were relevant to the objectives of this work were included in the review. Mechanical properties of nanocomposites are generally comparable to those of hybrid composites but higher than microfilled composites. Nanocomposites presented lower abrasive wear than hybrids but higher sorption values. Their clinical performance was comparable to that of hybrid composites.

Composites are increasing in popularity as restorative materials. This growing role indicates the necessity of studies on their clinical outcome. In this study, clinical studies published on the performance of posterior composite restorations were included except those of less than a 24-month assessment period. Results of non-vital, anterior or primary teeth and cervical single-surface restorations were also excluded. Records about composite type, number of final recall restorations, failure/survival rate, assessment period and failure reasons were analysed for each decade. Overall survival/failure rates for studies in 1995-2005 were 89.41%/10.59% and for 2006-2016 were 86.87%/13.13%, respectively. In 1995-2005, the reasons for failure were secondary caries (29.47%) and composite fracture (28.84%) with low tooth fracture (3.45%) compared with reasons of failure in 2006-2016, which were secondary caries (25.68%), composite fracture (39.07%), and tooth fracture (23.76%). An increase in incidence of composite fracture, tooth fracture and need for endodontic treatment as failure reasons was noted in the latter decade in addition to a decrease in secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, unsatisfactory marginal adaptation and wear. The overall rates of failure showed little difference, but the causes showed a notable change. This is believed to be a reflection of increased use of composites for larger restorations and possibly changes of material characteristics.

Background: This study evaluated the antimicrobial effect of a silver diamine fluoride (SDF)/potassium iodide (KI) product (Riva Star) on the viability of intratubular bacteria. Methods: Forty-five dentine discs prepared from caries-free maxillary premolars were randomly divided into nine groups. Group 1 (negative control) contained non-infected sound dentine discs. The remaining discs were infected with Streptococcus mutans suspension and received dentine treatments as follows: Group 2 (positive control), discs were left untreated; Group 3 SDF/KI (Riva Star); Group 4 chlorhexidine (CHX); Group 5 CHX + SDF/KI; Group 6 Carisolv; Group 7 Carisolv + SDF/KI; Group 8 Papacarie, and Group 9 Papacarie + SDF/KI. The discs were then fractured into two halves, stained with fluorescent LIVE/DEAD stain and observed using confocal laser scanning microscopy. Results: SDF/KI exhibited a potent antibacterial effect, as represented by a significantly higher percentage of dead bacteria, in comparison with Carisolv and Papacarie (p < 0.05). The application of SDF/KI following Carisolv and Papacarie chemomechanical caries removel gels significantly reduced the viability of intra-tubular bacteria in these groups. Conclusions: The use of the silver diamine fluoride/potassium iodide product is effective in reducing the numbers of S. mutans in dentinal tubules infected with this organism.

Background: Recent advances in enamel and dentine adhesive technology have resulted in the emergence of many new adhesive systems. Self-etching bonding systems do not require a separate etching step and the newest systems are the "all-in-one" systems which combine etching, priming and bonding into a single application. This study reports laboratory enamel microshear bond strengths of a self-etching priming and three all-in-one systems and also evaluates two different microshear bond test methods. Methods: One hundred and nineteen enamel specimens were bonded (0.8mm diameter) with either Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray), Xeno III (Dentsply), G Bond (GC) or One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama) using Palfique Estelite resin composite and stored in 37ºC water for seven days. The microshear bond test method used either a blade or wire to apply the shear stress. Results were analysed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc (Tukey) multiple comparison analysis. Results: Clearfil Protect Bond demonstrated higher and more consistent bond strengths than Xeno III, G Bond or One-Up Bond F. The wire method showed much greater reliability in results, with a coefficient of variation half that of the blade method. Conclusions: All-in-one adhesives seem to be less reliable than the two-step self-etching priming adhesive when bonding to enamel. Test method can significantly affect results in the microshear bond test method. Key words:Microshear bond test, all-in-one adhesives, self-etching priming adhesive, enamel, enamel bonding.Abbreviations and acronyms: ANOVA = analysis of variance; CEJ = cemento-enamel junction; DEJ = dentinoenamel junction; SEM = scanning electron micrograph.