Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable composites.

This study evaluated the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to human premolars using five different combinations of flowable composites and one-step self-etching adhesives (n=12): (1) Adper Easy Bond+Filtek Supreme XT Flow; (2) Futurabond NR+Grandio Flow; (3) Clearfil S3 Bond+Clearfil Majesty Flow; (4) AdheSE One+Tetric EvoFlow; and (5) Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer+Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive. After shear bond strength testing, adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were given according to the amount of adhesive and resin remaining on the brackets. On shear bond strength, there were no statistically significant differences between Groups 2 and 4 and between Groups 3 and 5 (p>0.05). On ARI scores, the predominant ARI scores in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 5 were 4, 2, 5, and 4 respectively; in Group 4, they were 0 and 4. Results showed that some combinations of flowable composites and self-etching adhesives might not be suitable for orthodontic use due to their low shear bond strengths and high ARI scores -with the latter signaling the risk of damaging the enamel surface during debonding.

Effect of adhesives and thermocycling on the shear bond strength of a nano-composite to coronal and root dentin.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of "etch & rinse" vs "self-etch" adhesives and thermocycling on the shear bond strength (SBS) of a nano-composite to coronal and root dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FIFTY-SIX EXTRACTED HUMAN MOLARS WERE mounted and ground to expose coronal and root dentin surfaces and were randomly divided into two groups according to adhesive system: SE--a two-step self-etch adhesive (Adper SE Plus, 3M ESPE) and ER-an etch & rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE). The adhesives were applied to the coronal and root dentin of the mounted teeth. A nano-composite (Filtek Supreme XT, 3M ESPE) was applied to both dentin surfaces. The bonded specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. Half of the bonded specimens were tested for SBS in a universal testing machine without thermocycling. The remaining specimens were thermocycled (500 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C) prior to SBS testing. Two specimens from each group were kept for Scanning Electron Microscope evaluations of the adhesive interfaces. Failure modes were determined under a stereomicroscope. The mean SBS value of each group was calculated, and the results were subjected to ANOVA, Duncan test and Paired samples t-test (p = 0.05). RESULTS: Thermocycling did not affect the SBS of coronal dentin for either adhesive. However, it affected the SBS of SE in root dentin (p < 0.05). The two different dentin substrates did not exhibit a significant difference except for higher values in root dentin with the SE group without thermocycling. The greatest number of cohesive failures was observed in root dentin with SE adhesive; however, the failure modes were mainly adhesive for the other groups. CONCLUSION: The SE adhesive exhibited higher SBS values than the ER adhesive in root dentin. Thermocycling did not affect the SBS in coronal dentin for either adhesive but it decreased the SBS of SE in root dentin.

Effect of Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation on the apical sealing ability of AH Plus/gutta-percha and Hybrid Root Seal/Resilon Combinations.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the sealing ability of 2 different resin-based endodontic filling systems after smear layer removal with 2 different techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Extracted human single-rooted teeth (n = 74) were instrumented using HERO Shaper rotary instruments and irrigated with 1 mL of 2.5% NaOCl between each instrument. Additionally, the canals received either an extra 3-minute rinse with 2 mL of 17% EDTA or a 40-second Er,Cr:YSGG laser treatment. The root canals were filled with either Hybrid Root Seal/Resilon combination or AH Plus/gutta-percha combination using lateral condensation technique (n = 11). Apical leakage quantity was measured with the computerized fluid filtration meter at 1 and 4 weeks. One root from each group, which was not submitted to the fluid filtration test, was selected for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using 3-way ANOVA and the post hoc Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: A significant decrease was observed in the microleakage values of all the experimental groups tested with time (P < .0001). EDTA + AH Plus/gutta-percha combination exhibited the least microleakage, whereas laser irradiation + Hybrid Root Seal/Resilon combination showed the greatest microleakage at each of the 2 time periods. Each experimental combination exhibited architecture in SEM that seemed to correlate with its sealing performance. CONCLUSION: Er,Cr:YSGG laser treatment does not enhance the sealing ability of the sealers compared with EDTA application. The root canal adaptation and sealing ability of the Hybrid Root Seal/Resilon combination is not superior to that of the AH Plus/gutta-percha combination.

Shear bond strength of three different nano-restorative materials to dentin.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of a nano-composite, a flowable nano-composite and a nano glass ionomer to dentin in vitro. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty human molars were ground flat, exposing the dentin surfaces, and they were randomly divided into five groups according to the restorative materials and adhesive systems used (n = 12/group). The restoratives were applied to all dentin surfaces according to the manufacturer's instructions, using a special jig (Ultradent) in the following manner: Group 1: a nano-composite (NC) (Filtek Supreme XT-3M ESPE) was applied with a two-step self-etch adhesive (SE) (Adper SE Plus-3M ESPE); Group 2: NC was applied with an etch&rinse adhesive (SB) (Adper Single Bond 2-3M ESPE); Group 3: a flowable nano-composite (FNC, Filtek Supreme XT Flow-3M ESPE) was applied with SE; Group 4: FNC was applied with SB and Group 5: a nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer (Ketac N100-3M ESPE) was applied with Ketac Nano Primer (3M ESPE). The bonded specimens were stored in distilled water (37 degrees C, 24 hours) and tested for SBS in a universal testing machine (1 mm/minute). Two specimens from each group were subjected to SEM evaluations of the adhesive interfaces. Failure modes were determined using a stereomicroscope. The mean SBS values were calculated and the data were analyzed with the Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney-U tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Mean SBS values (MPa) for the groups were 13.64; 7.83; 11.20; 4.12 and 0.64 for Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Group 1 exhibited a significantly higher value than all the other groups; whereas, Group 5 had the lowest value (p < 0.05). The SE adhesive yielded higher bond values than the SB adhesive with NC and FNC restorative materials. Failure modes in all the groups were primarily adhesive. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the capacity of the current two-step self-etch adhesive to outperform the etch&rinse adhesive in conjunction with the two nano-restoratives tested.

Influence of different conditioning methods on the shear bond strength of novel light-curing nano-ionomer restorative to enamel and dentin.

The purpose of this study was to investigate shear bond strength (SBS) between a light-curing nano-ionomer restorative and enamel or dentin after acid etching, after erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser etching, or after combined treatment. Forty third molars were selected, the crowns were sectioned, and 80 tooth slabs were obtained. The specimens were assigned to two groups, which were divided into four subgroups(n = 10). Group 1 [enamel (e)], treated with 37% phosphoric acid (A) + Ketac nano-primer (K); group 2 [dentin (d)], (A) + (K); group 3(e), Er:YAG laser etching (L) + (A) + (K); group 4(d), (L) + (A) + (K); group 5(e), (L) + (K); group 6(d), (L) + (K); group 7(e), (K); group 8(d), (K). The SBS of the specimens was measured with a universal test machine (1 mm/min). Data were analyzed by independent samples t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a post-hoc Duncan test (p < 0.05). No difference was determined between groups 3 and 5 (p > 0.05). Group 7 exhibited higher SBS values than those of groups 3 and 5 (p < 0.05). Group 1 showed higher SBSs than those of groups 3, 5 and 7 (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between groups 4 and 6 (p > 0.05). No difference was observed between groups 2 and 4 (p > 0.05). However, group 2 presented higher SBSs than did group 6 (p < 0.05). Group 8 exhibited the highest SBS values when compared with groups 2, 4 and 6 (p < 0.05). Er:YAG laser adversely affected the adhesion of the light-curing nano-ionomer restorative to both enamel and dentin.

Microleakage and scanning electron microscopy evaluation of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites prepared by erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser and bur.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites in class V cavities prepared by erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser and bur. Class V cavities were prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 72 premolars by Er:YAG laser or bur and divided into six groups (n = 24). The occlusal margins were enamel and the cervical margins were cementum. The groups were as follows: group 1 Er:YAG laser preparation (E) + Xeno V (X) + CeramX (C); group 2 bur preparation (B) + X + C; group 3 E + AdheSE One (A) + Tetric EvoCeram (T); group 4 B + A + T; group 5 E + Clearfil S3 Bond (CSB) + Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (CME); group 6 B + CSB + CME. All teeth were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, then thermocycled 500 times (5-55 degrees C). Ten teeth from each group were chosen for the microleakage investigation and two teeth for the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation. The teeth that were prepared for the microleakage test were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. After immersion, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (P < 0.05). Bur-prepared cavities presented less microleakage in all groups for enamel (P < 0.05); however, in cervical margins, there were no differences between laser-prepared and bur-prepared cavities in the Xeno V + CeramX and AdheSE One + Tetric EvoCeram groups (P > 0.05). SEM observations of restorative material-dentin interfaces seemed to correspond with those of the microleakage test. Microleakage at the cervical interfaces was greater than that at the occlusal interfaces. Er:YAG laser-prepared class V cavities yielded more microleakage in occlusal margins with all-in-one self-etch adhesives and the respective manufacturer's nanocomposites.

Leakage pathway of different nano-restorative materials in class V cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur preparation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of different nano-restorative materials in Class V cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 72 premolars by Er:YAG laser or bur. The occlusal margins were in enamel and the cervical margins were in cementum. Teeth were randomly assigned to six groups of 12 teeth (n = 24 cavities) each as follows: Group 1, Er:YAG laser preparation (E)+Ketac N100 (K); Group 2, bur preparation (B)+K; Group 3, E+Adper Prompt L-Pop (A)+Filtek Supreme XT Flow (FSF); Group 4, B+A+FSF; Group 5, E+A+Filtek Supreme XT (FS); Group 6, B+A+FS. All teeth were thermocycled 500 times. Ten teeth from each group were chosen for the microleakage investigation and two teeth for the scanning electron microscope evaluation. Teeth prepared for the microleakage test were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. Afterwards, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: There were significant differences between occlusal and cervical regions for all groups (p < 0.05) except for Group 1. Bur-prepared cavities showed less microleakage in all groups for enamel (p < 0.05); however, in cementum there were no significant differences between the bur- and laser-prepared cavities in nano-glass ionomer and flowable composite groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: It may be concluded that the cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser showed higher degree of microleakage than those conventionally prepared by bur, regardless of the restorative material at enamel margins.

Microleakage of class V cavities with different adhesive systems prepared by a diamond instrument and different parameters of Er:YAG laser irradiation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of composite resin restorations using two different dentine adhesive systems prepared with a diamond instrument and different parameters of Er:YAG laser irradiation. BACKGROUND DATA: Information on this topic with regard to preparing class V cavities with different parameters of Er:YAG laser irradiation and adhesive systems is scarce. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred class V cavities were assigned to ten groups (n = 20 each): group 1: Er:YAG laser (5 Hz, 600 mJ) + phosphoric acid (PA) + Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB2); group 2: Er:YAG laser (10 Hz, 300 mJ) + PA + ASB2; group 3: Er:YAG laser (15 Hz, 200 mJ) + PA + ASB2; group 4: Er:YAG laser (20 Hz, 150 mJ) + PA + ASB2; group 5: diamond instrument + PA + ASB2; group 6: Er:YAG laser (5 Hz, 600 mJ) + Adper Prompt L-Pop (APLP); group 7: Er:YAG laser (10 Hz, 300 mJ) + APLP; group 8: Er:YAG laser (15 Hz, 200 mJ) + APLP; group 9: Er:YAG laser (20 Hz, 150 mJ) + APLP; and group 10: diamond instrument + APLP. Cavities were restored with a nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme XT Body). After thermocycling, the specimens were stained with 0.5% aqueous basic fuchsin dye and sectioned bucco-lingually. Dye penetration was then scored. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction. The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to compare occlusal and gingival scores. RESULTS: Leakage was seen in all groups at both the occlusal and gingival margins. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistically significant differences among the 10 groups (p < 0.001). The gingival margins had more microleakage than the occlusal margins (p < 0.001). Pairwise analysis by the Mann-Whitney U test showed that statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in microleakage were found between groups 3 and 5 (3 > 5), 5 and 7 (7 > 5), and 7 and 8 (7 > 8) at the gingival margin, and between groups 3 and 6 (6 > 3), 3 and 7 (7 > 3), 4 and 6 (6 > 4), and 4 and 7 (7 > 4) at the occlusal margin. CONCLUSION: We concluded that for all groups, microleakage values were higher at the gingival margins. The use of the Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation with different parameters and different dentine adhesive systems influenced the marginal sealing of composite resin restorations.

Comparison of the antibacterial activity of different self-etching primers and adhesives.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial effects of different one-step and two-step self-etching primer/adhesives on Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans), Lactobacillus casei (L. casei), and Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The antibacterial effects of Clearfil Protect Bond Primer and Bonding agent; AdheSE Primer and Bonding agent; Adper Prompt L-Pop; Futurabond NR; Clearfil Tri S Bond; and Cervitec (positive control, 1% chlorhexidine varnish) were tested against standard strains of S. mutans, L. Casei, and L. acidophilus using the disk diffusion method. Standard filter paper disks (n=5) impregnated with 20 microL of each material were prepared. After incubation at 37 masculineC for 48 hours in a 5-10% CO2 atmosphere, the diameter of inhibition zones were measured in millimeters. Data were analyzed using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Duncan's Multiple Range Test was used for pairwise comparison. RESULTS: The size of inhibition zones produced by primer/adhesives varied among the brands. AdheSE Primer: S. mutans (20.6+/-1.51); L. casei (14.8+/-1.78); L. acidophilus (11.4+/-0.54). Adper Prompt L-Pop: S. mutans (19.6+/-1.51); L. casei (13.8+/-1.64); L. acidophilus (13.8+/-1.09). Cervitec: S. mutans (23+/-0.00); L. casei (27+/-0.70); L. acidophilus (22.4+/-0.54). Clearfil Protect Bond Primer: S. mutans (17+/-0.00); L. casei (17.6+/-0.54); L. acidophilus (22.4+/-0.54). Futurabond NR was found effective only against S. mutans (14.6+/-1.67). Of all the materials tested, AdheSE Bonding agent, Clearfil Protect Bond Bonding agent, and Clearfil Tri S Bond exhibited no inhibition zone (-) for all bacteria tested. CONCLUSION: Among the adhesives tested Clearafil Protect Bond Primer based upon monomer methacryloyloxydodecylpyridiniium bromide (MDPB) was found to be the most potent material against L. acidophilus and L. casei. AdheSE Primer and Adper Prompt L-Pop are highly effective against S. mutans. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Compared with other adhesive systems, Clearfil Protect Bond Primer (containing MDPB) showed a high antibacterial effect against all microorganizms tested. Two-step, self-etching primer/adhesive system Clearfil Protect Bond might be a suitable choice under minimally invasive restorations. The recently developed one-step, self-etching system Clearfil Tri S Bond showed no antibacterial effect against microorgazims tested.

Influence of location of the gingival margin on the microleakage and internal voids of nanocomposites.

AIM: The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the cervical microleakage and internal voids of nanocomposites comparing them with a hybrid composite in Class II restorations with the margins located coronal and apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Standardized MOD cavities (one cervical margin located in dentin, one in enamel) were prepared in 40 extracted human molars and divided into four groups according to the composite used to restore them (n=10/group). Group 1: Adper Single Bond2/Filtek Supreme XT; Group 2: Excite/Tetric EvoCeram; Group 3: Prime & BondNT/Ceram X; and Group 4 (control) Adper Single Bond2/Filtek Z250. Groups were further divided into subgroups A and B. The "A" subgroups represent the level of the location of the cervial margin at 1 mm coronal to the CEJ, and the "B" subgroups represent the level of the cervical margin located 1 mm apical to the CEJ. After restoration of the cavities with nanocomposites, thermocycling, and immersion in 0.5% basic fuchsin, the dye penetration and internal voids were evaluated under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests with the Bonferroni correction for microleakage and with the Chi-square test for internal voids (p<0.05). RESULTS: The microleakage in the A subgroups was statistically significantly lower then B subgroups (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of interface, cervical, and occlusal voids for all groups (p>0.05). No significant difference was observed between each group for three voids in all groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The location of the gingival margin affects the microleakage of nanocomposites but has no significant affect on the internal voids. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Gingival margin located 1 mm coronal to the CEJ provided a reduction in cervical microleakage in nanocomposite restorations.

Sealing capacity of a flowable composite, as a protective base, with different conditioning methods in nonvital bleaching.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the microleakage of a nano-flowable composite used as a protective base, applied with different conditioning methods in nonvital bleaching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty root-filled teeth were divided into four treatment groups (n = 10 per group): group 1--Er:YAG laser etching + Adper Single Bond 2; group 2-37% phosphoric acid + Adper Single Bond 2; group 3--Adper Prompt L-Pop; and group 4--No treatment. A nano-flowable composite (Filtek Supreme Flow) base was used in each group. For a 24-h period, 40% hydrogen peroxide solution was applied to the pulp chambers, and they were subsequently subjected to a dye (silver nitrate) challenge for 4 h. After the dye was washed out with water, each tooth was cut in half and both halves were exposed to sunlight for 2 h to promote oxidation of the dye, turning it black. Finally the sections were examined under 4x magnification to determine the degree of leakage as assessed with a four-point scale. Statistical analysis was performed with the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups 1, 2, and 3 (p > 0.05), but the teeth in group 4 had significantly higher microleakage scores than the teeth in the other groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Self-etching adhesive application, Er:YAG laser etching, and phosphoric acid etching combined with an adhesive system all showed similar microleakge scores when a nano-flowable composite was applied as a protective base in nonvital bleaching.

The influence of one-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites.

OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study evaluated the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites that contain nanoparticles and a microhybrid composite finished and polished with two different one-step polishing systems and a conventional multi-step polishing system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The materials evaluated were Filtek Supreme XT, Grandio, Ceram X, Aelite Aesthetic Enamel, Tetric EvoCeram and Filtek Z250. A total of 240 specimens (10-mm in diameter, 2 mm thick) were fabricated for both tests (n=120 each test) in a plexiglass mold covered with a Mylar strip. After polymerization, five specimens per group received no polishing treatment and served as the control for both tests. For each composite group (n=15), the specimens were randomly divided into three polishing systems: PoGo, OptraPol and Sof-Lex. All polishing systems were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions after being ground wet with 1200 grid silicon carbide paper. The surface roughness values were determined using a profilometer. The microhardness measurements were performed using a digital microhardness tester (load 500 g; dwell time 15 seconds). The data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA test at a significance level of 0.05 for both tests. Multiple comparison was performed with the Duncan Multiple Range test. RESULTS: The smoothest surfaces were achieved under Mylar strips in all composite groups (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between polishing systems in the Filtek Supreme XT, Ceram X, Aelite Aesthetic Enamel and Grandio groups for surface roughness (p>0.05). In the Tetric EvoCeram group, Sof-Lex exhibited the highest roughness values. No statistically significant differences were evaluated between polishing systems (p>0.05); whereas, the surfaces under Mylar Strip showed statistically significant lower values than the polished surfaces in terms of microhardness (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: One-step polishing systems may be successfully used for polishing nanocomposites.

Effect of antibacterial varnishes applied to root dentin on shear bond strength of tooth-colored restorative materials.

This study investigated the effect of certain varnishes on the bond strength of different tooth-colored restorative materials applied to root dentin. One-hundred and eighty tooth slabs, including mesial and distal surfaces, were attained through dividing the teeth, then embedding them in methylmethacrylate. The root surfaces were ground flat through cementum, exposing the dentin. The samples were then randomly divided into three main groups: Group 1: Cervitec; Group 2: Fluor Protector and Group 3: No applications (control). Cervitec and Fluor Protector were applied to the root dentin surfaces according to the manufacturer's instructions. All the samples were kept in artificial saliva for six months. Each main group was subdivided into five groups of 12 teeth each: Group A: Flowable Resin Composite (Grandio Flow); Group B: Microhybrid Resin Composite (Artemis); Group C: Polyacid Modified Resin Composite (Dyract Extra); Group D: Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (Vitremer) and Group E: Conventional Glass-Ionomer Cement (Ionofil Molar). Restorative materials were applied to the root dentin surfaces using a cylindrical mold. After thermocycling (1000 cycles, 5 degrees C/55 degrees C, dwell time 30 seconds), the shear bond strength of the restored samples was determined by a universal testing machine (Zwick Test Machine, Zwick GmbH & Co, Ulm, Germany) at a 5 mm/minute crosshead speed. Failure mode was determined under a stereomicroscope. The data were evaluated statistically by using one-way Analysis of Variance and Duncan tests (p< or =0.05). In the fluoride varnish group, all of the restorative materials except for Ionofil Molar, showed lower bond strengths when compared to the control group (p<0.05). In the Cervitec group, Artemis and Dyract Extra showed lower bond strengths; whereas, Ionofil Molar showed a higher bond strength than the control group (p<0.05). The highest percentage of cohesive fracture was observed in Artemis and Dyract Extra in the control group.

Effect of one-step polishing systems on surface roughness of different flowable restorative materials.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of one-step polishing systems on the surface roughness of different flowable composites and a microhybrid composite. A total of 120 disks were fabricated and divided into six groups according to the different composite restorative materials tested (n = 20). Each group was further divided into four subgroups according to the polishing system (n = 5). For the control group, samples were left undisturbed after removal of Mylar strip. For the other three subgroups, samples were polished with PoGo, OptraPol, or Sof-Lex disks. Surface roughness was determined using a profilometer and observed under scanning electron microscope (SEM). Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test. For Tetric Flow, Grandio Flow, Filtek Supreme XT Flow, and Admira Flow, their lowest surface roughness values were obtained in Mylar Strip and PoGo groups. For Compoglass Flow, there were no significant differences between Mylar Strip, PoGo, and OptraPol. For Filtek Z250, the lowest surface roughness value was obtained with Mylar Strip. In light of the surface roughness results obtained, one-step polishing systems seemed to be a good choice for polishing flowable composites.

Dentin bond strength of composites with self-etching adhesives using LED curing lights.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of light-emitting diode (LED) light curing units (LCUs) compared with halogen LCUs on the shear bond strength (SBS) of one nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme) and one microhibrid composite (Artemis) with self-etch adhesives. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The buccal surfaces of 60 non-carious extracted human molars were flattened to expose dentin and, subsequently, polished for 60 seconds with 600-grit wet silicon carbide abrasive paper. Specimens were assigned into six groups (n=10) according to composite material, self-etch adhesive, and curing light used as follows: Group 1: Adper Prompt L-Pop (AP) and Filtek Supreme (FS) using an Elipar Free Light (EFL); Group 2: AP and FS using an Elipar Free Light 2 (EFL2); Group 3: AP and FS using a Hilux Expert (HE) light, Group 4: AdheSE (AS)+Artemis (AR) using an EFL; Group 5: AS+AR using an EFL2; and Group 6: AS+AR using a HE light. The specimens were thermocycled for 500 cycles (5 masculineC-55 masculineC) and then loaded to failure in a Zwick universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/minute. SBS values were calculated as megapascals (MPa) and statistically analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Mean SBS (+/- standard deviations) values were as follows: Group1: 15.99+/-5.18; Group 2: 18.76+/-6.71; Group 3: 17.70+/-5.04; Group 4: 16.93+/-3.99; Group 5: 18.01+/-5.19, and Group 6: 17.46+/-5.40. There were no statistically significant differences for SBS to dentin among the groups tested. CONCLUSION: The LED curing lights used in the study seem to be comparable with the halogen curing light for nanofill and microhybrid composites used in conjunction with self-etching systems in dentin. The EFL2 reduces curing time, which can be considered as an advantage.

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded using conventional vs one and two step self-etching/adhesive systems.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the effects of one- and two-step self-etching primer and adhesive with conventional acid-etching and bonding system on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The one-step self-etching primer and adhesive used was Clearfil tri-S bond, the two-step fluoride-releasing antibacterial self-etching primer and adhesive was Clearfil Protect Bond, and the fluoride-releasing conventional acid-etching and bonding system was Kurasper F Bond. Brackets were bonded to defect-free human premolars (n = 14 per group) according to each manufacturer's recommendations by using light-cured bracket adhesive Kurasper F Paste with a light-emitting diode of a light-curing unit. The specimens were stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C for 48 hours and then tested in shear with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min until the brackets debonded. The mode of failure of the brackets was determined by a modified adhesive remnant index. RESULTS: Mean shear bond strength values were 9.00 MPa for Kurasper F Bond, 9.55 MPa for Clearfil Protect Bond, and 9.48 MPa for Clearfil tri-S Bond. One-way analysis of variance detected no statistically significant difference among groups (P = .98, P > .05). The predominant failure for the three groups was at the bracket-adhesive interface leaving less than 25% of the adhesive on the bracket base. CONCLUSIONS: One-step self-etching adhesive and two-step fluoride-releasing antibacterial self-etching adhesive have sufficient mechanical properties for the bonding of orthodontic brackets.

Effect of flowable composite lining on microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of four flowable composite linings on marginal microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations with the margins above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class II cavities were randomly divided into 8 groups (n = 10). Group 1: One Step Plus/Aelite LS Packable; group 2: One Step Plus/Aelite Flow/Aelite LS Packable; group 3: Comfort Bond/Solitaire 2; group 4: Comfort Bond/Flowline/Solitaire 2; group 5: Solobond M/Grandio; group 6: Solobond M/Grandio Flow/Grandio; group 7: Admira Bond/Admira; Group 8: Admira bond/Admira Flow/Admira. After restoration, all teeth were stored for 24 h, thermocycled (at 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C) 500 times, and soaked in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. After soaking, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope. Gingival marginal microleakage and internal voids (at the gingival wall interface and in the cervical and the occlusal parts) were recorded. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U- and Kruskal-Wallis tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Statistical analyses indicated that the use of flowable resin composites provided a reduction in microleakage in groups 6 and 8. Groups 2 and 4 showed fewer voids in the cervical area than without flowable composites. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that none of the materials tested was able to eliminate the marginal microleakage on the cervical wall. Flowable resin composites under nanohybrid (group 6) and ormocer (group 8) composites provided a significantly different reduction in microleakage compared to restorations without flowable liners. Fewer cervia voids were observed in packable composites with flowable liner (groups 2 and 4) than without flowable liner (groups 1 and 3s).

Effect of two light-emitting diode (LED) and one halogen curing light on the microleakage of Class V flowable composite restorations.

AIM: The disadvantages of light cured composite resin materials with respect to microleakage are predominantly a result of polymerization shrinkage upon curing. It has been shown curing methods play a significant role in polymerization shrinkage of light-cured composite resins. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of light-emitting diode (LED) light curing units (LCUs) compared with a halogen LCU on microleakage of three different flowable composites using self-etch adhesives. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 63 extracted human premolars were prepared with standardized Class V cavity preparations on the buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth. The occlusal margin of the cavities was located on the enamel and the gingival margin was on dentin. Teeth were randomly assigned to three groups of 21 teeth each as follows: Group 1: Adper Prompt L-Pop + Filtek Flow (3M ESPE); Group 2: AdheSE + Tetric Flow (Ivoclar, Vivadent); and Group 3: Clearfil Protect Bond + Clearfil Protect Liner F (Kuraray Medical Inc.). All the groups were subdivided into three groups according to the curing lights used (n=7). Two LED LCUs, Elipar FreeLight and Elipar FreeLight 2 (3M ESPE), and one halogen-based LCU, Hilux Expert (Benlioglu ), were used. All teeth were then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye solution for 24 hours after thermocycling (500 cycles; between 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C). The teeth then were longitudinally sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope (40X magnification) by two examiners. The degree of dye penetration was recorded separately for enamel and dentin. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests with the Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in microleakage were observed between groups either on enamel or dentin (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: With the limitation of this in vitro study, the differences in microleakage between LCUs used were not statistically significantly different. Elipar Free Light 2 reduces curing time which can be considered as an advantage.

The effect of two different polishing techniques on microleakage of new composites in Class V restorations.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of polishing systems on the microleakage of a nanofill, a nanohybrid, and a microhybrid composite in Class V cavities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Preparations were made at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) of 36 extracted human premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups and restored with new resin composites according to the manufacturers' instructions as follows: Group 1, Filtek Supreme & Single Bond; Group 2, Grandio & Solobond; and Group 3, Artemis & Excite. The restorations were finished with diamond finishing burs. The restored/finished teeth were randomly divided into two groups and polished using the following systems: Super-Snap (Al2O2 coated, abrasive disc system, fine grit, and extra fine grit) and Astropol/Astrobrush (silicon-based abrasive polisher point and polisher brush). All specimens were thermocycled 1000 times with a 10 second dwell time. They were immersed in 0.5% aqueous basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours and then sectioned buccal-lingual-longitudinally through the center of both restorations of each tooth and evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 30X magnification. The degree of dye penetration was quantified. RESULT: No significant difference in leakage scores was observed in enamel margins (p=0.456, Kruskall Wallis test), but dentin margins were significantly affected by the different polishing systems (p=0.037, Kruskall Wallis test). The lower leakage scores were recorded for Astropol/Astrobrush polishing systems. The nanofill composite showed the least leakage among the test groups in this study. The most leakage was observed in nanohybrid composite resin (p<0.05, Mann Whitney U test). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this in vitro study: the microleakage resistance of composites at enamel margins is not significantly affected by the different polishing systems; the lowest leakage scores were recorded for Astropol/Astrobrush polishing techniques in different types of composites; and the ranking of the composite materials from most to least leakage at the dentin margins according to polishing techniques was Grandio >Artemis > Filtek Supreme.

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with 3 self-etch adhesives.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare shear bond strength and mode of failure of brackets bonded with 3 self-etching products. METHODS: The products tested were (1) a recently developed, modified self-etching, 1-step adhesive system (Adper Prompt L-Pop Self Etch Adhesive, 3M, St Paul, Minn); (2) a new fluoride-releasing, antibacterial, self-etching adhesive system (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kuraray, Osaka, Japan); and (3) a fluoride-releasing, self-etching adhesive system (Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer, 3M). Thirty-six defect-free premolars were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 12 each), and metal brackets were bonded according to the manufacturer's instructions. Brackets were debonded in shear on a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm per minute. RESULTS: One-way ANOVA showed a statistically significant (P < .001) difference between groups. Group 2 had the highest shear bond strength. The difference between groups 1 and 3 was not statistically significant. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant differences in the ARI scores (P = .595; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The fluoride-releasing, antibacterial, self-etching adhesive system, Clearfil Protect Bond, produced greater shear bond strength than the other 2 products tested and could be considered for clinical use.