It was concluded that two different surface conditioning methods and storage conditions did not significantly affect the bonding properties of Panavia F and RelyX Unicem resin composite luting cements to Zirconia.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of different commercial composite resin cement systems to lithium disilicate all-ceramic substrate. Five adhesive resin cement systems Panavia 21 and Panavia F (Kuraray), Variolink 2 (Ivoclar-Vivadent), RelyX Unicem Applicap and RelyX ARC (3M ESPE) were used on all-ceramic (IPS Empress 2; Ivoclar-Vivadent) substrate. Shear bond strength of adhesive resin cement to substrate was tested after thermocycling, or without thermocycling (n = 10). Substrate surfaces of the specimen after loading were SEM microscopically examined. The highest bond strengths in water stored conditions were obtained with RelyX ARC (28.7 +/-3.9 MPa), while in thermocycled conditions the highest bonding values were obtained with Variolink 2 (23.2 +/- 7.5 MPa). The lowest values in both water stored (5.8 +/- 4.0 MPa) and thermocycled (2.4 +/- 2.9 MPa) conditions were obtained with Panavia 21. Shear bond strengths appeared to be affected significantly by thermocycling (anova, P < 0.05). It was concluded that there were significant differences between the bond strengths of adhesive resin cements to lithium disilicate substrate.

No abstract

In this clinical study, pre-and post-rehabilitation changes in intraborder mandible movements, chewing cycles, masticatory efficiencies, and borders of the chewing area of patients with unilateral muscular disorders (MD) (n = 20) or unilateral disc derangement disorders (DDD) (n = 20) of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) were observed and compared with healthy individuals with full dentition (n = 20) (48 female, 12 male; mean age: 28). The MD patients received stabilization splints and the DDD patients, anterior positioning splints for six weeks. Symptoms, such as muscle pain, TMJ pain, headache, chewing difficulty, and maximum mouth opening, showed significant improvements after splint therapy for both MD (p = 0.000) and DDD (p = 0.000) patients, but lateral excursion and protrusion were not significantly changed (p > 0.05). Chewing efficacy and chewing cycles improved significantly (p < 0.05) in both the MD (p < 0.05) and DDD (p < 0.05) groups, but only the MD group was comparable to the control group after treatment. Pre-and post-rehabilitation chewing cycles along the frontal plane on both sides in the MD group were similar to the control group. Considering the majority of the improvements in the diagnostic measures, patients with MD and DDD may benefit from occlusal splint therapy. ABSTRACT:In this clinical study, pre-and post-rehabilitation changes in intraborder mandible movements, chewing cycles, masticatory efficiencies and borders of chewing area of patients with unilateral muscular disorders (MD) (n=20), unilateral disc derangement disorders (DDD) (n=20) of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) were observed and compared with healthy individuals with full dentition (n=20) (48 female, 12 male; mean age: 28). MD patients received stabilization splints and DDD patients anterior positioning splints for a duration of 6 weeks. Symptoms such as muscle pain, TMJ pain, headache, chewing difficulty, maximum mouth opening showed significant improvements after splint therapy for both MD (p=0.000) and DDD (p=0.000) patients but lateral excursion and protrusion were not significantly changed (p>0.05). Chewing efficacy and chewing cycles improved significantly (p<0.05) in both MD (p<0.05) and DDD (p<0.05) groups but only MD group was comparable to control group after treatment. Pre-and post-rehabilitation chewing cycles along frontal plane on both sides of MD group were similar to control group. Considering the majority of the improvements in the diagnostic measures, patients with MD and DDD may benefit from occlusal splint therapy.4

No abstract

OBJECTIVES This prospective clinical study evaluated the performance of indirect, anterior, surface-retained, fibre-reinforced-composite restorations (ISFRCR). METHODS Between June-2003 and January-2011, a total of 134 patients (83 females, 51 males, 16-68 years old) received 175 ISFRCRs (local ethical registration number: 14/9/4). All restorations were made indirectly on a plaster model using unidirectional E-glass fibres (everStick CB, StickTech) in combination with a laboratory resin composite (Dialogue, Schütz Dental) and cemented according to the instructions of 4 resin cements [(RelyX ARC, 3M-ESPE, n=61), Bifix DC, VOCO, n=45), Variolink II (Ivoclar Vivadent, n=32) and Multilink (Ivoclar Vivadent, n=37)]. After baseline recordings, patients were followed at 6 months and thereafter annually up to 7.5 years. The evaluation protocol involved technical (chipping, debonding or fracture of tooth/restoration) and biological failures (caries). RESULTS Mean observation period was 58 months. Altogether, 13 failures were observed [survival rate: 97.7%] (Kaplan-Meier). One catastrophic fracture [(cement: RelyX ARC), eight partial debonding (cement: Bifix DC (5), Multilink (1), RelyX ARC (1), Variolink II (1)] and four delaminations of veneering composite [(cement: Bifix DC (2), RelyX ARC (1), Multilink (1)] were observed. Except one replacement, all defective restorations were repaired or recemented. Annual failure rate of ISFRCRs was 1.73%. The survival rates with the four resin cements did not show significant differences (RelyX ARC: 98.3%; Bifix DC: 93.5%; Variolink 2: 100%; Multilink: 100%) (p=0.114). Secondary caries did not occur in any of the teeth. CONCLUSION The 3-unit anterior indirect surface-retained resin-bonded FRC FDPs showed similar clinical survival rate when cemented with the resin cements tested. Experienced failures in general were due to debonding of the restoration or delamination of the veneering composite. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE 3-unit surface retained resinbonded FRC FDPs could be considered minimal invasive and cost-effective alternatives to conventional tooth-or implant-borne FDPs. Failures were mainly repairable in the form of chipping or debonding depending on the resin cement type. Variolink 2: 100%; Multilink: 100%) (p=0.114). Secondary caries did not occur in any of the teeth. Conclusion:The 3-unit anterior indirect surface-retained resin-bonded FRC FDPs showed similar clinical survival rate when cemented with the resin cements tested. Experienced failures in general were due to debonding of the restoration or delamination of the veneering composite.Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02343796.

The aim of this investigation was to compare the bond strength of restorative composite resin to dental ceramic conditioned with primers and adhesives of various commercial repair kits. Three intra-oral ceramic repair systems--Silistor (Heraeus Kulzer), Cimara (Voco), Ceramic Repair (Vivadent)--were used on all-ceramic (IPS Empress 2, Ivoclar-Vivadent) substrate. Shear bond strength of restorative composite resin to substrate was tested after thermocycling and without thermocycling (n = 10). Substrate surfaces of the specimen after loading were examined microscopically (SEM). The highest bond strengths in both water-stored (7.0 +/- 5.7 MPa) and thermocycled conditions (2.5 +/- 1.8 MPa) were obtained with the Vivadent repair system, while the lowest values were observed with the Cimara system (0.6 +/- 1.4 MPa and 0.0 +/- 0.0 MPa, respectively). Shear bond strengths appeared to be significantly affected by thermocycling (ANOVA, P < 0.05). It is concluded that there are significant differences in the bond strengths of resin composites and ceramic substrate. The roughened surface does not necessarily provide a better bond strength; the bond strength of composite decreases with storage in water and after thermocycling. Bond strength values were generally low for all of the tested materials.

No abstract