No abstract

No abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored with conventional, bulk-fill, and fiber-reinforced composite materials regarding intact teeth. Standard cavities were prepared on 70 sound third molar teeth. The teeth were randomly divided into six groups: intact teeth, conventional Bis-GMA based composite, fiber-reinforced composite, Bis-GMA based bulk-fill composite, ormocer based bulk-fill composite, glass containing resin-based bulk-fill composite. The data was obtained by a Universal Testing Machine and analyzed statistically. Fracture resistance of the teeth restored with conventional composite was significantly lower than the other groups (p<0.05). The teeth restored with fiber-reinforced composite showed the highest fracture resistance; however, there were no statistically significant differences between intact teeth and teeth restored with fiber-reinforced composite, Bis-GMA based bulk-fill composite, and glass containing resin-based bulk-fill composite (p>0.05). The obtained data showed that restoring teeth with bulk-fill and fiber-reinforced composites could be recommended in Class II cavities.

Objective: This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of ion-releasing restorative materials to sound and caries-affected dentin (CAD). Study design: 60 teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups (sound dentin, CAD) and 5 subgroups of 6 samples each: conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified GIC (RMGIC), glass hybrid reinforced GIC (EQ), giomer (BII), and bioactive restorative material (ACT). μTBS analyses were performed and data were analyzed statistically. Results: The ACT group bonded to sound dentin and the BII group bonded to CAD showed the highest μTBS (p&lt;0.05). The GIC, RMGIC, and ACT groups, showed significantly lower μTBS when bonded to CAD compared with sound dentin (p&lt;0.05). However, in the BII group, there were no statistically significant differences between the samples bonded to sound and CAD (p&gt;0.05). All groups except EQ that bonded to sound dentin showed predominantly adhesive failure. Conclusion: The use of the giomer can be recommended due to its more stable bond durability.

No abstract