Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial of Class II Restorations Using Low-shrinkage Flowable Resin Composite.

PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial was to evaluate postoperative sensitivity, clinical performance, and interproximal contacts after using different restorative systems. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-three subjects each received three class II restorations according to the restorative systems: conventional resin composite (PA: Peak Universal+Amelogen Plus, Ultradent), low-shrinkage flowable and nanoparticulate resin composites (ABF: Adper Single Bond 2+Filtek Bulk Fill Flow+Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE), and low-shrinkage flowable and microhybrid resin composites (XST: XP Bond+SDR+TPH3, Dentsply). Postoperative sensitivity was assessed at 24 hours, seven days, 90 days, and six months. The clinical performance and interproximal contacts were evaluated at baseline, six months, and one year. Friedman, Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests were used to evaluate postoperative sensitivity and interproximal contacts. The equality test of two proportions and logistic regression analysis were used to assess the clinical performance. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed among groups for postoperative sensitivity. The highest spontaneous sensitivity was reported at 24 hours. ABF was the only group that did not present a reduction in cold sensitivity. Color, marginal discoloration, and superficial staining showed differences among the groups. XST did not show superficial staining after one year. No differences were observed among groups in relation to interproximal contacts. XST resulted in the loss of interproximal contact after one year. CONCLUSIONS: Different types of restorative systems do not influence postoperative sensitivity; however, ABF maintained cold sensitivity over time. Marginal discoloration occurred for all groups but occurred earliest for PA. XST presented a reduction of interproximal contact after one year of evaluation.

A New Approach for Dental Bleaching Using Violet Light With or Without the Use of Whitening Gel: Study of Bleaching Effectiveness.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of violet light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in dental bleaching treatment when used in conjunction with bleaching gels containing different concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (HP). Here, 90 bovine teeth (n=15) were randomly assigned to the following groups: GI, placebo without light; GII, 35% HP without light; GIII, 17.5% HP without light; GIV, placebo with violet LED; GV, 35% HP with violet LED; and GVI, 17.5% HP with violet LEDs. Three bleaching sessions of 45 minutes were conducted; 21 cycles involving one minute of irradiation by violet LEDs with 30-second intervals were performed during each session of bleaching (GIV, GV, and GVI). Color changes (ΔE, ΔL, Δa, and Δb) were analyzed using a visible ultraviolet light spectrophotometer 7 days after each bleaching session. The mean ΔE, ΔL, Δa, and Δb values were compared between groups by analysis of variance and Tukey tests, with a significance level of 5%. The groups treated with 35% HP had higher ΔE and ΔL and lower Δb values, regardless of whether violet light was used. The group that received only violet LED differed from the control group in terms of ΔE, and the group treated with 17.5% HP and violet LED presented higher ΔE values than the group treated with 17.5% HP only. Thus, violet light did not influence bleaching efficacy when using 35% HP, but when used in conjunction with 17.5% HP, it increased the bleaching efficacy. Moreover, use of the violet LED only also prompted a bleaching effect, although it was less marked.