Clinical performance of non-carious cervical lesions restored with using self-etch mode of adhesives according to the FDI criteria.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 18-month retrospective study of self-etch adhesive (Prime&Bond One Select) and self-etch mode of universal adhesives (Single Bond Universal, Gluma Bond Universal) applied to non-carious cervical lesions according to the World Dental Federation criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients without any systemic disease, good oral hygiene, having at least 20 teeth and six non-carious cervical lesions treated using a self-etch mode of adhesives operated between January and March 2017. Accordingly, 335 restorations were evaluated according to the World Dental Federation criteria at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. Pillai's Trace test was used to determine the interaction of criteria with time and adhesive systems. IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0 program was used in the analysis. Value of P < 0.05 was accepted as a criterion for statistical significance. RESULTS: At the end of 18 months, participation was 100%. There was a statistically significant difference P < 0.05 between Prime&Bond One Select and Single Bond Universal, Prime&Bond One Select and Gluma Bond Universal in the 18-month period. In terms of marginal staining, fracture of material and retention, recurrence of caries, erosion and abfraction, tooth integrity criteria at the end of the 18 months, Prime&Bond One Select performed clinically very good, Single Bond Universal and Gluma Bond Universal performed clinically good according to World Dental Federation criteria. Marginal adaptation criteria, Prime&Bond One Select, Single Bond Universal and Gluma Bond Universal performed clinically good. Retention loss rate was found to be the lowest in Prime&Bond One Select and the highest in Gluma Bond Universal. CONCLUSION: Accordingly, 18-month evaluation of all adhesives used in the study showed clinically acceptable results in all of the World Dental Federation criteria.

Effects of Preheating and Sonic Delivery Techniques on the Internal Adaptation of Bulk-fill Resin Composites.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of conventional (hand-placed), sonic, or preheated insertion techniques on the internal adaptation of bulk-fill resin composites. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 150 freshly extracted human third molars were used to prepare standardized cylindrical occlusal cavities. Teeth were divided into five main groups according to the resin composites: 1 incremental (Clearfil Majesty Posterior [CMP]) and four paste-like bulk-fill (SonicFill 2 [SF2], VisCalor bulk [VCB], Filtek One bulk-fill restorative [FBR], and Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill [TEB]). Each main group was divided into three subgroups according to the placement technique: conventional, preheating, and sonic delivery (n=10). In the conventional placement technique, cavities were filled manually. In the sonic insertion technique, a specific handpiece (SonicFill Handpiece; Kerr Corporation) was used. In the preheating technique, a heating device (Caps Warmer, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) was used to warm the resin composites before placement. Internal voids (%) of the completed restorations were calculated with microcomputed tomography. Data was analyzed with two-way analysis of variacne followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test (α=0.05). RESULTS: All resin composites showed fewer internal gaps with preheating compared with the conventional placement (p<0.05). For all resin composites other than SF2, preheating provided fewer internal gaps than that of the sonic placement (p<0.05). Sonic placement led to fewer internal gaps compared with the conventional placement, but only for SF2 and FBR (p<0.05). For the conventional placement, the lowest gap percentage was observed with the incremental resin composite (CMP, p<0.05). Among all groups, the lowest gap percentages were observed for preheated VCB followed by sonically inserted SF2 (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The best internal adaptation was observed in sonically inserted SF2 and preheated VCB, which were the manufacturers' recommended insertion techniques. Preheating considerably improved the internal adaptation of all resin composites, except for that of SF2.

Three-year Clinical Performance of Two Giomer Restorative Materials in Restorations.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical performance of both conventional and flowable giomer restorative materials was particularly good in Class I restorations after three years of service. SUMMARY: This study evaluated and compared the clinical performance of a flowable and a conventional giomer restorative material after three years. Forty-four pairs of restorations (total n=88) were placed in Class I cavities with either a flowable giomer (Beautifil Flow Plus F00; Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or a conventional giomer restorative material (Beautifil II; Shofu Inc) after the application of a dentin adhesive (FL-Bond II; Shofu Inc) and a flowable liner (Beautifil Flow Plus F03; Shofu Inc). After 3 years, 39 pairs of restorations were evaluated with the modified United States Public Health Service criteria, and digital color photographs of restorations were taken at each patient visit. The evaluation parameters were as follows: color match, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, retention, secondary caries formation, anatomic form, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity. Evaluations were recorded as a clinically ideal situation (Alpha), a clinically acceptable situation (Bravo), or a clinically unacceptable situation (Charlie). Data were analyzed with Fisher's exact and McNemar tests (α=0.05).None of the restorations showed retention loss, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or color change. The performance of Beautifil II in terms of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and surface anatomic form was significantly lower at the 36-month follow-up than at baseline (p=0.007). There were no significant differences between the baseline and 36-month follow-up scores for the other criteria for Beautifil II (p>0.05). No differences were found between the baseline and the 36-month follow-up scores for any of the criteria for Beautifil Flow Plus F00 (p>0.05). No statistically significant difference in overall clinical performance was found between the 2 materials after 36 months (p>0.05).The three-year clinical performance of both restorative materials (Beautifil Flow Plus F00 and Beautifil II) was very good and not significantly different for any of the parameters evaluated.

Kinematics of a novel reciprocating endodontic handpiece.

AIM: To analyse the kinematics of the Reciproc Direct® contra-angle reciprocating device with different motor sources. METHODOLOGY: Reciproc Direct contra-angle (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany) was tested with new micro-motor sources. The micro-motor groups were as follows: a brushless electric micro-motor, a brushed electric micro-motor and an air-driven micro-motor. The electric micro-motor sources were also divided into four subgroups as 10 000, 15 000, 20 000 and 25 000 rpm. The maximum air pressure of the air-driven micro-motor was adjusted to 2 and 3 kgf cm-2 . A custom target object was attached to the Reciproc Direct, and reciprocating motions were recorded with a high-speed camera at 1200 frames per second. The following kinematic parameters were calculated: duration of each reciprocating motion, engaging and disengaging angles, cycle rotational speeds, engaging and disengaging rotational speeds, net cycle angle, total cycle angle and number of cycles to complete full rotation. One-way anova was used where applicable, followed by Tukey's multiple comparison tests, to compare the kinematic values of reciprocating motion for each micro-motor/Reciproc Direct combination. The Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test was used for non-normally distributed data. Statistical analysis was performed (α = 0.05). RESULTS: For the brushless micro-motor, median engaging angle was 186.5 ° at 10 000 rpm and 188.0 ° at 15 000 rpm which were significantly different than median engaging angles at 20 000 (188.5 °) and 25 000 (189.3 °) rpm (P < 0.05). For the brushless micro-motor, median cycle rotational speed was 372.5 rpm at 10 000 and 459.8 rpm at 15 000 rpm which were significantly different than median cycle rotational speed at 20 000 (576.2 rpm) and 25 000 (677.8 rpm) rpm (P < 0.05). For the brushed micro-motor, median cycle rotational speed was 293.5 rpm at 10 000 and 386.3 rpm at 15 000 rpm which were significantly different than median cycle rotational speed at 20 000 (508.9 rpm) and 25 000 (597.6 rpm) rpm (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Rotational speeds were influenced significantly by motor sources even when the Reciproc Direct was used at speeds recommended by the manufacturer. This could indicate that the kinematics of the Reciproc Direct are dependent on the power of the rotating motor.