In vitro effects of erosive challenge on the surface properties of sealants

Aim: To assess in vitro the surface roughness (Ra), Vickers hardness (VHN) and surface morphology of resin and glass ionomer materials used for sealants after dynamic erosive challenge. Methods: Twenty specimens of each material were prepared and divided into experimental (erosive challenge) and control groups (n=10): Protect Riva (SDI), Opallis Flow (3M ESPE), Fluroshield (Dentsply), Filtek Z350 XT Flow (3M ESPE). The erosive challenge was performed 4 times per day (90 s) in cola drink and for 2 h in artificial saliva for 7 days. The control specimens were maintained in artificial saliva. Ra and VHN readings were performed before and after erosion. The percentage of hardness loss (%VHN) was obtained after erosion. The surface morphology was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The data were analyzed by ANOVA, Tukey and paired t tests (α=0.05). Results: After erosion and saliva immersion, there was an increase in Ra values for all groups and Riva group showed the highest Ra values. After erosive challenge, Riva and Filtek groups showed significant decrease in VHN values, but Filtek group showed the greatest %VHN. For all groups there was inorganic particle protrusion and matrix degradation after erosion visualized by SEM images. Conclusions: Erosive challenge affected the surface properties of all materials used as sealants, particularly in the Riva and Filtek groups.

Clinical evaluation of two materials in the restoration of abfraction lesions

Aim: To evaluate the clinical performance of a composite resin (CR) and a resin-modified glassionomer cement (RMGIC) for the treatment of abfraction lesions. Methods: Thirty patients with abfraction lesions in at least two premolar teeth were selected and invited to participate in this study. All restorations were made within the same clinical time frame. One tooth was restored with CR Z100TM (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA), and the other was restored with RMGIC VitremerTM (3M). The restorations were assessed immediately and 1, 6 and 12 months after the restoration, using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria: marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, wear, retention, secondary caries and hypersensitivity. The statistical analysis was based on Friedman ANOVA test and Mann-Whitney test, considering p<0.05 for statistical significance. Results: Both materials demonstrated satisfactory clinical performance after one year. In the individual analysis of each material, there was a significant difference (p<0.05) in the criteria marginal integrity and wear, for both CR and RMGIC. RMGIC exhibited more damage one year after the restoration. Comparing both materials, it was found a significant difference only for marginal discoloration, while the RMGIC restorations showed the worst prognosis after a year of evaluation. There was no significant difference in the number of retentions, caries or hypersensitivity between CR and RMGIC. Conclusions: It was concluded that CR exhibited the best clinical performance according to the cost-effectiveness and evaluation criteria used in this study.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands

Background: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. :Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. Search methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. Data collection and analysis: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Main results: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.