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.

Push-out bond strength and SEM evaluation of a new bonding approach into the root canal

Objective: This study evaluated the performance of different adhesive systems in fiber post placement aiming to clarify the influence of different hydrophobic experimental blend adhesives, and of one commercially available adhesive on the frictional retention during a luting procedure. Material and Methods: One luting agent (70 Wt% BisGMA, 28.5% TEGDMA; 1.5% p-tolyldiethanolamine) to cement fiber posts into root canals was applied with 4 different adhesive combinations: Group 1: The etched roots were rinsed with water for 30 s to remove the phosphoric acid, then rinsed with 99.6% ethanol for 30 s, and blot-dried. A trial adhesive (base to catalyst on a 1: 1 ratio) was used with an experimental luting agent (35% Bis-GMA, 14.37% TEGDMA, 0.5% EDMAB, 0.13% CQ); Group 2: A trial adhesive (base to catalyst on a 1: 2 ratio) was luted as in Group 1; Group 3: One-Step Plus (OSP, Bisco Inc.) following the ethanol bonding technique in combination with the luting agent as in Group 1; Group 4: OSP strictly following the manufacturer's instructions using the luting agent as in Group 1. The groups were challenged with push-out tests. Posted root slices were loaded until post segment extrusion in the apical-coronal direction. Failure modes were analyzed under scanning electron microscopy. Results: Push-out strength was not significantly influenced by the luting agent (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences among the tested groups were found as Group 1 (Exp 1 - ethanol-wet bonding technique)=Group 2 (Exp 2 - ethanol-wet bonding technique)= Group 3 (OSP - ethanol-wet bonding technique)= Group 4 (control, OSP - water-wet bonding technique) (p>0.05). The dominating failure modes in all the groups were cohesive/adhesive failures, which were predominantly observed on the post/luting agent interface. Conclusions: The results of this study support the hypothesis that the proposal to replace water with ethanol to bond fiber posts to the root canal using highly hydrophobic resin is plausible, but this seems to be more the proof of a concept than a clinically applicable procedure.

Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: five-year follow-up

This study evaluated the five-year clinical performance of ceramic inlays and onlays made with two systems: sintered Duceram (Dentsply-Degussa) and pressable IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent). Eighty-six restorations were placed by a single operator in 35 patients with a median age of 33 years. The restorations were cemented with dual-cured resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent) and Syntac Classic adhesive under rubber dam. The evaluations were conducted by two independent investigators at baseline, and at one, two, three, and five years using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. At the five-year recall, 26 patients were evaluated (74.28%), totalling 62 (72.09%) restorations. Four IPS restorations were fractured, two restorations presented secondary caries (one from IPS and one from Duceram), and two restorations showed unacceptable defects at the restoration margin and needed replacement (one restoration from each ceramic system). A general success rate of 87% was recorded. The Fisher exact test revealed no significant difference between Duceram and IPS Empress ceramic systems for all aspects evaluated at different recall appointments (p>0.05). The McNemar chi-square test showed significant differences in relation to marginal discoloration, marginal integrity, and surface texture between the baseline and five-year recall for both systems (p<0.001), with an increased percentage of Bravo scores. However, few Charlie or Delta scores were attributed to these restorations. In conclusion, these two types of ceramic materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance after five years