Purpose:The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of 4 mouth rinses on the color stability of two different resin composites. Materials and Methods:A2 shade sonic-activated bulk fill material SonicFill (Kerr) and conventional nanohybrid composite Filtek Z550 (3M ESPE) were used. Forty disc-shaped specimens (10 mm x 2 mm) were fabricated for both composites and finished using 400-grit SiC paper and polished. After polishing and immersing in distilled water for 24h all specimens were subjected to color measurements. The baseline color values (L*, a*, b*) of each specimen were measured with a colorimeter. Following baseline measurement each composite group was divided into 5 groups: Oral-B Pro Expert Clinic Line Alcoholfree (Oral-B) group, Listerine Tooth Defense Rinse (Listerine) group, Pharmol Zn Mouth rinse (Çözümilaç) group, Nilera Mouth rinse (Nilera) group and Distilled water (control) group. The specimens were incubated in mouth rinses (20 ml) at 37°C for 12 hours and subjected to color measurement. Two-way ANO VA was used for statistical analysis (p<0.05). Results:SonicFill showed significantly higher discoloration when exposed to Oral-B Pro Expert Clinic Line Alcohol-free, Listerine Tooth Defense Rinse and Pharmol Zn Mouth rinse. The color differences of two resin composites were not statistically significant for distilled water and Nilera Mouth rinse.Conclusion:Within the limits of this study it can be concluded that the SonicFill showed higher discoloration than nanohybrid resin composite Filtek Z550.

This prospective clinical trial evaluated the clinical performance of indirect onlay and overlay restorations made of resin composite. From January 2012 to March 2013, a total of 60 patients (36 males, 24 females; mean age; 34.4±10 years) received 67 posterior onlay/overlay restorations in the maxila or mandible made of laboratory processed indirect composite (Gradia, GC, Japan). Patients were followed until March 2015. Two operators luted all restorations adhesively (Variolink II). Two independent calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline (2 weeks), 6 months, and then annually, during regularly scheduled maintenance appointments, using the modified USPHS criteria for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, color match, surface roughness, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity. The observation periods involved 4 recalls during 24 months. Changes in the USPHS parameters were analyzed with the Friedman and Bonferroni-adjusted Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests (α=0.05). The mean observation period was 24.1 months. All restorations assessed were clinically acceptable with alfa scores predominating. Two restorations failed due to severe pain and subsequent extraction during the observation period. Not the color match (p>0.05) but marginal adaptation (p<0.05), marginal discoloration (p<0.05) and surface roughness (p<0.05) showed a significant difference between baseline and the 2-year recall. No secondary caries or fractures were observed until the final follow up.The indirect composite tested demonstrated to be successful for posterior onlay and overlays but deteriorations in qualitative parameters were observed during the 2-year clinical service.

This study evaluated the clinical performance of a nanofill resin composite in Class III and IV cavities. Materials and Methods: One hundred and seven Class III and Class IV restorations were performed with a nanofill resin composite. Restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS/FDI criteria. The changes were analyzed using McNemar and Marginal Homogeneity and Kaplan-Meier tests. Results: Fourteen absolute failures were encountered resulting in a survival rate of 86.8% (Kaplan-Meier). Nanofill resin composite showed acceptable clinical performance up to 32 months of service. Conclusion: However color stability and retention decreased at the end of two year follow up instead of fractures.

No abstract