Objective: To assess microleakage of a tooth-adhesive-bracket complex when metal or ceramic brackets were bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial self-etching adhesive. Materials and Methods: Forty freshly extracted human premolars were randomly assigned to four equal groups and received the following treatments: group 1 = Transbond XT + metal bracket, group 2 = Transbond XT + ceramic bracket, group 3 = Clearfil Protect Bond + ceramic bracket, and group 4 = Clearfil Protect Bond + metal bracket. After photopolymerization, the teeth were kept in distilled water for 1 month and thereafter subjected to thermal cycling (500 cycles). Specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for marginal microleakage for the adhesive-tooth and bracket-adhesive interfaces from incisal and gingival margins. Statistical analysis was accomplished by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction. Results: All groups demonstrated microleakage between the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces. A significant difference was observed among all groups (P < .05) for the microleakage between the bracket-adhesive interface. Metal brackets exhibited significantly more microleakage than did ceramic brackets between the bracket-adhesive interface with either of the adhesives. Clearfil Protect Bond exhibited results similar to Transbond XT. Clearfil Protect Bond may be a choice of adhesive in bracket bonding because of its antibacterial activity and similar microleakage results with the orthodontic adhesive. Conclusions: Metal brackets cause more leakage between an adhesive-bracket interface, which may lead to lower clinical shear bond strength and white-spot lesions.

Dental education consists of both theoretical and practical learning for students to develop competence in treating patients clinically. When dental students encounter practical courses in their irst year as a new educational experience, they must also learn to evaluate themselves. Self-evaluation is an essential skill to learn for dental professionals to keep increasing their competence over the course of their careers. The aim of this study was to compare the assessment scores of second-and thirdyear dental students and the faculty in two consecutive preclinical practical exams in restorative dentistry courses in a dental school in Turkey. Faculty-and student-assigned scores were calculated from two consecutive preclinical examinations on tooth restorations performed on both artiicial casts and phantom patients. The students were formally instructed on grading procedures for tooth preparations, base and restoration placement, and polishing criteria. After each step, each item was assessed by faculty members, the student, and another student. The results indicated that the initial differences between second-year students' assessments of their own preclinical practical ability and that of the faculty decreased among the third-year students. Self-evaluation scores did not indicate whether the third-year students tended to over-or underestimate the quality of their own work. However, the second-year students not only overestimated themselves but thought they were above average. The results point to the need to develop students' self-insight with more exercises and practical training.

Nanohybrid and low-shrinkage posterior resin composites, placed with self-etch adhesive systems in posterior teeth, showed satisfactory and similar results after two years. SUMMARYObjective: This study evaluated the clinical performance of a nanohybrid and a low shrinkage posterior composite in Class I and II restorations after two years. Methods and

No abstract

Evaluation of curing distance of high intensity led curing units on microleakage of ceramic restorations Background: To assess the microleakage in slot shaped cavities restored with IPS e.max Press inlays luted with a resin cement that cured with two types of high intensity LEDs units at 0 or 9 mm distances.

Objectives:The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the 12 month clinical performances of two different posterior composites in Class I and Class II restorations.Methods:Thirty-one patients (10 male, 21 female) were recruited into the study. A total of 82 Class I and Class II cavities were restored with either a nanohybrid composite (Grandio) or a low-shrinkage composite (Quixfil), using their self etch adhesives (Futura Bond and Xeno III) according to manufacturers’ instructions. The restorations were clinically evaluated 1 week after placement as baseline, and after 6 and 12 months post-operatively using modified USPHS criteria by two previously calibrated operators. Statistical analysis were performed using Pearson Chi-square and Fisher’s Exact Test (P<.05).Results:All patients attended the 12-month recall. Lack of retention was not observed in any of the restorations. With respect to color match, marginal adaptation, secondary caries and surface texture, no significant differences were found between two restorative materials tested after 12 months (P>.05). None of the restorations had marginal discoloration and anatomic form loss on the 12 month follow-up. Restorations did not exhibit post-operative sensitivity at any evaluation period.Conclusions:Clinical assessment of nanohybrid (Grandio) and low-shrinkage posterior composite (Quixfil) exhibited good clinical results with predominating alpha scores after 12 months. However; further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials.

No abstract

No abstract