Titanium abutment background masking using highly opaque cements for implant prosthetics.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the capacity of highly opaque cements on masking titanium abutment background. METHODS: Dentin and titanium specimens were used to simulate respectively, a natural dental background and an implant abutment. To simulate the full-crowns, Y-TZP zirconia (ZC), lithium disilicate (LD), and resin composite (RC) blocks were used. The titanium specimens were divided into six cementation groups (n=10): two regular cements (BQM and RX); three opaque cements (MHA; VA and BHA); and a clear liquid (CL). The masking capacity of each cement was calculated as the color difference between the color of the crowns over dentin with clear liquid (reference) and the color of the crowns over the titanium with the different cements (ΔEab). Data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey test (α= 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences (P= 0.0001) were observed for both factors, cement and crown, and for the interactions between them. The results of Tukey test for cement were: BHA-2.25(0.98), MHA-2.94 (1.03), VA-3.45 (1.67), BQM-9.55 (2.77), RX-9.88 (3.12), CL-10.41 (3.47). The cements BHA, MHA and VA showed significantly smaller means than BQM, RX and CL. The results for crown were: ZC-3.66 (2.37), LD-7.50 (4.08), RC-8.08 (4.67). The means for all crown materials were significantly different. Highly opaque cements were more efficient on background masking than regular cements. Zirconia promoted the higher color masking while the resin composite the lowest. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of a highly opaque cement can reduce the color interference of the titanium abutment background, favoring the esthetic outcome of metal-free cemented crowns.

Bond Strength of Composite Resin Restoration Repair: Influence of Silane and Adhesive Systems.

AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of silane (Si) application and different adhesive systems on the bond strength of composite resin repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred composite truncated cone-shaped specimens were prepared and submitted to 5,000 thermal cycles to simulate existing restorations. Their top surfaces were airborne particle abraded with aluminum oxide, etched with phosphoric acid, and divided into two groups (n = 50) with or without Si application. Each group was divided into five subgroups (n = 10) according to the adhesive system applied: Solobond Plus Primer and Adhesive (SPA)-two-bottle, Solobond Plus adhesive (SA), Admira Bond (A)-one bottle, Futurabond DC (FDC)-self-etch, and Futurabond M (FM)-self-etch. New composite resin was applied over the bonded area. A control group was prepared to evaluate the cohesive strength of the composite resin. Specimens were submitted to tensile stress. Data were analyzed with two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the Tukey and Dunnett tests. RESULTS: Si application reduced the bond strength of all adhesives (p = 0.001). Groups SA and SPA showed higher bond strengths in relation to other groups (p = 0.01). Groups FDC + Si, FM, FM + Si, and A + Si showed smaller mean bond strength values than that of the control group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Previous Si application reduced bond strength values. The two-bottle adhesive showed better results than one-bottle or self-etching systems for composite resin repairs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The kind of adhesive system applied for composite resin repairs has a great influence on bond strength values. The use of Si in this situation is not recommended.