Comparative evaluation of topographical data of dental implant surfaces applying optical interferometry and scanning electron microscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Comparability of topographical data of implant surfaces in literature is low and their clinical relevance often equivocal. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of scanning electron microscopy and optical interferometry to assess statistically similar 3-dimensional roughness parameter results and to evaluate these data based on predefined criteria regarded relevant for a favorable biological response. METHODS: Four different commercial dental screw-type implants (NanoTite Certain Prevail, TiUnite Brånemark Mk III, XiVE S Plus and SLA Standard Plus) were analyzed by stereo scanning electron microscopy and white light interferometry. Surface height, spatial and hybrid roughness parameters (Sa, Sz, Ssk, Sku, Sal, Str, Sdr) were assessed from raw and filtered data (Gaussian 50µm and 5µm cut-off-filters), respectively. Data were statistically compared by one-way ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test. For a clinically relevant interpretation, a categorizing evaluation approach was used based on predefined threshold criteria for each roughness parameter. RESULTS: The two methods exhibited predominantly statistical differences. Dependent on roughness parameters and filter settings, both methods showed variations in rankings of the implant surfaces and differed in their ability to discriminate the different topographies. Overall, the analyses revealed scale-dependent roughness data. Compared to the pure statistical approach, the categorizing evaluation resulted in much more similarities between the two methods. SIGNIFICANCE: This study suggests to reconsider current approaches for the topographical evaluation of implant surfaces and to further seek after proper experimental settings. Furthermore, the specific role of different roughness parameters for the bioresponse has to be studied in detail in order to better define clinically relevant, scale-dependent and parameter-specific thresholds and ranges.

Monomer conversion in dual-cured core buildup materials.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of self-curing (SC) and light-curing (LC) mechanisms on the curing efficiency of dual-cured buildup restorative materials (DCB). METHODS: The DCB materials tested were: Clearfil DC Core Automix (CD), Cosmecore DC (CM), LuxaCore DC (LX) and MultiCore DC Flow (MC). The SC material Clearfil Core New Bond (CN) and the LC material Clearfil Photo Core (CP) were used as controls. Specimens (Ø=4 mm, d=1 mm, n=4) of DCB materials prepared without light-exposure were tested after 10-, 20-, 30- and 60-minutes of storage in dark and dry conditions (37°C), whereas DCB specimens light-cured immediately after mixing (20 seconds, 850mW/cm2) served as a reference. The amount of remaining C=C bonds (%RDB) was measured on the bottom specimen surfaces using ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. One-way ANOVA and multiple comparison tests were used to evaluate the statistically significant differences (α=0.05). RESULTS: Polymerization mode had a strong effect on the polymerization efficacy of the DCB materials (p<0.0001). The control materials (CN, CP) performed better than the DCB materials (p<0.0001), except for LX in the LC mode. LX and MC showed better SC conversion during the initial 20-minute period. After 60 minutes, the %RDB values of CM were still above 60%, whereas in CD and LX, they reached the level of LC specimens. CONCLUSIONS: The LC initiation mechanism of the DCB materials that were tested resulted in better C=C conversion when compared to their native SC mechanisms. The SC and LC control materials performed better than the DCB materials, with the exception of LX in the LC mode.

Marginal and internal adaptation of Class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling.

To overcome the shortcomings of the conventional composite restorative materials, ormocer materials have been introduced over the past few years. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal and internal adaptation of two ormocer restorative systems (Admira, Voco and Definite, Degussa) compared to a hybrid composite one (TPH Spectrum, Dentsply/ DeTrey), before and after load cycling in Class II restorations. Standardized Class II restorations with cervical margins on enamel were divided into three groups ( n=16). Teeth of each group were filled with one of the restoratives tested and its respective bonding agent. Each group was divided into two equal subgroups. The marginal and internal adaptation of the first subgroup was evaluated after 7-day water storage at room temperature and of the second after cyclic loading in a mastication simulator (1.2x10(6) cycles, 49 N, 1.6 Hz). The occlusal and cervical marginal evaluation was conducted by videomicroscope and ranked as "excellent" and "not excellent". One thin section (150 microm), in mesial-distal direction, of each restoration, was examined under metallographic microscope to determine the quality of internal adaptation. The occlusal and cervical adaptation of both ormocer restorative systems was similar and clearly worse compared with the hybrid composite restorative one before as well as after load cycling. Concerning internal adaptation, no gap-free ormocer restorations were detected, whereas all Spectrum restorations presented perfect adaptation. The bonding agents of the ormocers formed layers with unacceptable features (pores, fractures) whereas that of the hybrid composite achieved perfect bonding layer even after loading. The rheological characteristics of the bonding agents of the ormocer restorative systems are proposed to be responsible for their inferior marginal and internal quality in Class II restorations compared with the hybrid composite one.