Effectiveness of immediate bonding of etch-and-rinse adhesives to simplified ethanol-saturated dentin

This study examined the immediate bond strength of etch-and-rinse adhesives to demineralized dentin saturated with either water or absolute ethanol. The research hypothesis was that there would be no difference in bond strength to dentin between water or ethanol wet-bonding techniques. The medium dentin of 20 third molars was exposed (n = 5). The dentin surface was then acid-etched, left moist and randomly assigned to be saturated via either water wet-bonding (WBT) or absolute ethanol wet-bonding (EBT). The specimens were then treated with one of the following etch-and-rinse adhesive systems: a 3-step, water-based system (Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose, or SBMP) or a 2-step, ethanol/water-based system (Adper Single Bond 2, or SB). Resin composite build-ups were then incrementally constructed. After water storage for 24 h at 37 degrees C, the tensile strength of the specimens was tested in a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 5%). The failure modes were verified using a stereomicroscope (40x). For both adhesives, no significant difference in bond strength was observed between WBT and EBT (p > 0.05). The highest bond strength was observed for SB, regardless of the bonding technique (p < 0.05). No significant interaction between adhesives and bonding techniques was noticed (p = 0.597). There was a predominance of adhesive failures for all tested groups. The EBT and WBT displayed similar immediate bond strength means for both adhesives. The SB adhesive exhibited higher means for all conditions tested. Further investigations are needed to evaluate long-term bonding to dentin mediated by commercial etch-and-rinse adhesives using the EBT approach.

56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations

Objective: This study evaluated the 56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations. Filtek P60 was compared with Filtek Z250, which are both indicated for posterior restorations but differ in terms of handling characteristics. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in the clinical performance of the two resin composites in posterior teeth. Material and Methods: Thirty-three patients were treated by the same operator, who prepared 48 Class I and 42 Class II cavities, which were restored with Single Bond/Filtek Z250 or Single Bond/Filtek P60 restorative systems. Restorations were evaluated by two independent examiners at baseline and after 56 months, using the modified USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed statistically using Chi-square and Fisher's Exact tests (alpha=0.05). Results: After 56 months, 25 patients (31 Class I and 36 Class II) were analyzed. A 3% failure rate occurred due to secondary caries and excessive loss of anatomic form for P60. For both restorative systems, there were no significant differences in secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity. However, significant changes were observed with respect to anatomic form, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation. Significant decreases in surface texture were observed exclusively for the Z250 restorations. Conclusions: Both restorative systems can be used for posterior restorations and can be expected to perform well in the oral environment.

Conservative approach to restore the first molar with extensive destruction: a 30-month follow-up

The available options for restoring multiple surface cavities are: amalgam, composite resin, or indirect restorations. Adhesive system and intradentinal pin-retained composite resin restorations should have a similar performance to pin-retained amalgam, regarding resistance to support occlusal forces. Polymerization shrinkage is a major concern when performing direct posterior composite resin restorations and the incremental insertion technique can provide less stress and outstanding margin behavior. Intradentinal pins can potentially enhance composite resin's retention, while reducing gaps caused by polymerization shrinkage. This article reports a clinical case involving an extensive restoration on a posterior tooth with cusp loss that was successfully treated using an intradentinal pin and direct nano-hybrid composite resin restoration.