The Use of Glass-fibers Ribbon and Composite for Prosthetic Restoration of Missing Primary Teeth-Laboratory and Clinical Research.

Very few modalities can be used for restoring missing primary anterior teeth, although the impact of missing anterior teeth during early childhood can be harmful. In the permanent dentition the use of glass-fibers ribbon and composite materials are frequently used for restoring missing teeth with no or minimal preparation. The purpose of this study was to examine the possibility to use the glass-fibers ribbon (ever-Stick from GC Corporation, Japan) together with esthetic composite materials (G-aenial A1 from GC Corporation, Japan) for restoring anterior primary teeth and to determine the best methodology and bonding system to be used. The effect of etching time was analyzed using 20-80 sec on primary buccal enamel with SEM and the results showed that at least 60 second is necessary in order to remove the prismless layer and to affect the prismatic layer similar (as observed by SEM) to the 20 sec etching time on permanent enamel. Three bonding systems (SE Bond by Kurary, Japan, Scotchbond Universal by 3M/ESPE, Germany and G-aenial bond by GC Company, Japan) were compared for bonding the glass-fibers ribbon to the primary enamel and microtensile strength analyses were performed. Mean tensile strength ranged from 10.9 to 13 MPa with no statistically significant differences between all three systems. Based on the laboratory results it can be concluded that the glass-fibers ribbon together with the composite material can be used clinically to restore missing primary teeth for esthetic and functional reasons. Two clinical cases are presented that show favorable results.

Effect of preheating on the mechanical properties of resin composites.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the flexural strength and modulus of two commercial resin composites, at room temperature and 40, 45 and 50 degrees C prior to light polymerization with standard and step-cure protocols. METHODS: One nanohybrid (Grandio, VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany), and microhybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) were used. The materials were inserted into rectangular moulds at room temperature or preheated to a temperature of 40, 45 or 50 degrees C and cured with standard or step-cure protocols with high intensity halogen (Elipar Highlight, 3M-ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). Ten specimens were prepared for each preheating and light curing protocol. A three-point bending test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc tests (P<.05) to examine the effect of curing protocol and preheating. Pearson's correlation test was used to determine the correlation between tested mechanical properties and preheating. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant difference between tested mechanical properties of the materials, curing protocols and temperature of the materials. No significant correlation was found between preheating and tested mechanical properties. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanical properties of the tested materials did not changed by preheating so the tested materials could be preheated because of the other potential clinical advantages like more adaptation to the cavity walls.