A comparative study of silver amalgam and compomer as retrograde filling materials in periapical surgery

Objective: A comparative study is made of the histological effects of silver amalgam versus compomer (Dyract®) 90 days after placement as retrograde filling materials in experimental animals. Method: Six Beagle dogs were used, with total pulpectomy and orthograde material filling followed by periapical surgery of the 6 upper and 6 lower incisors (for a total of 72 teeth). Thirty-six teeth corresponded to the right side and were filled with the control material (silver amalgam), while the 36 teeth on the left side were filled with the compomer study material (Dyract®). After three months the animals were sacrificed and the histological study was carried out, with evaluation of bone formation, inflammation, and the tissue in contact with the filler material. The results obtained were subjected to a descriptive and comparative statistical analysis (chi-square test). Results: The samples retrogradely filled with compomer showed significantly greater percentage inflammation (76.19% versus 26.66% in the control group). On the other hand, a large proportion of samples with root cement growth were found in the compomer group. Filler material expulsion was also significantly more common when compomer was used. Conclusions: the comparative study of the histological findings showed greater inflammation but also greater root cement growth in the compomer group versus the controls

Analysis of surface roughness of glass-ionomer cements and compomer

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of two glass-ionomer cements (Vitremer and Chelon-Fil), and one compomer (Dyract) when submitted to different finishing/polishing procedures at different times. A hundred 80-sample discs were made of each material and randomly divided into six finishing/polishing groups: mylar strip (control); Sof-Lex discs; diamond burs; diamond burs/Sof-Lex discs; 30-fluted carbide bur; 30-fluted carbide bur/Sof-Lex discs. These procedures were carried out immediately after preparation of the samples, after 24 and 168 h. Average surface roughness (Ra) was measured with a profilometer and the values were compared using anova (P < 0.05). The smoothest surface for all materials was obtained when cured in contact with the mylar strip. All other tested products increased surface roughness of restorative materials, but Sof-lex discs lead to better results. The worst results were verified with diamond burs. The finishing/polishing procedures, when performed immediately, can improve the roughness of glass-ionomer cements but not of the compomer tested.

Immediate shear bond strengths of a composite, a compomer and a glass ionomer to a ceramic substrate.

PURPOSE To determine the best-performing combination of three core buildup materials and three bonding materials based on their bond strength to ceramic blocks in vitro. MATERIALS AND METHODS The materials used for core buildup were a composite (Tetric EvoCeram), a compomer (Compoglass F), and a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Fil Plus), and for bonding, a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Syntac), a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (ExciTE), and a single-step system (RelyX Unicem). Bond strength to ceramic blocks was determined by shear bond strength testing. Fracture behavior was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS The highest adhesive values between buildup and ceramic were obtained using the materials Compoglass F and Syntac, followed by Compoglass F and ExciTE. Among the two other core buildups, Tetric EvoCeram performed better than Ketac Fil Plus, which was independent of the bonding materials. Adhesive fractures were characteristically observed with Syntac and ExciTE, and cohesive fractures were characteristically observed with RelyX Unicem. CONCLUSION These data show that compomers bonded with a multistep adhesive system achieved statistically significantly higher shear bond strength than composites and glass-ionomer cements. Within the limitations inherent to this in vitro study, the use of compomers for core buildup can be recommended.

Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations: a meta-analysis.

Purpose: More than five hundred million direct dental restorations are placed each year worldwide. In about 55% of the cases, resin composites or compomers are used, and in 45% amalgam. The longevity of posterior resin restorations is well documented. However, data on resin composites that are placed without enamel/dentin conditioning and resin composites placed with self-etching adhesive systems are missing. Material and Methods: The database SCOPUS was searched for clinical trials on posterior resin composites without restricting the search to the year of publication. The inclusion criteria were: (1) prospective clinical trial with at least 2 years of observation; (2) minimum number of restorations at last recall = 20; (3) report on dropout rate; (4) report of operative technique and materials used; (5) utilization of Ryge or modified Ryge evaluation criteria. For amalgam, only those studies were included that directly compared composite resin restorations with amalgam. For the statistical analysis, a linear mixed model was used with random effects to account for the heterogeneity between the studies. P-values under 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Of the 373 clinical trials, 59 studies met the inclusion criteria. In 70% of the studies, Class II and Class I restorations had been placed. The overall success rate of composite resin restorations was about 90% after 10 years, which was not different from that of amalgam. Restorations with compomers had a significantly lower longevity. The main reason for replacement were bulk fractures and caries adjacent to restorations. Both of these incidents were infrequent in most studies and accounted only for about 6% of all replaced restorations after 10 years. Restorations with macrofilled composites and compomer suffered significantly more loss of anatomical form than restorations with other types of material. Restorations that were placed without enamel acid etching and a dentin bonding agent showed significantly more marginal staining and detectable margins compared to those restorations placed using the enamel-etch or etch-and-rinse technique; restorations with self-etching systems were between the other groups. Restorations with compomer suffered significantly more chippings (repairable fracture) than restorations with other materials, which did not statistically differ among each other. Restorations that were placed with a rubber-dam showed significantly fewer material fractures that needed replacement, and this also had a significant effect on the overall longevity. Conclusion: Restorations with hybrid and microfilled composites that were placed with the enamel-etching technique and rubber-dam showed the best overall performance; the longevity of these restorations was similar to amalgam restorations. Compomer restorations, restorations placed with macrofilled composites, and resin restorations with no-etching or self-etching adhesives demonstrated significant shortcomings and shorter longevity.

Cariostatic effect of fluoride-containing restorative systems associated with dentifrices on root dentin

Objective. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the interaction between two sources of fluoride (restorative systems and dentifrices) in inhibiting artificial root caries development. Methods. One hundred and eighty tooth segments were embedded in polyester resin, and sanded flat. Cylindrical cavities 1.0 mm-deep and 1.5 mm-diameter were prepared in root dentin and randomly restored by fluoride-containing restorative systems: Ketac-fil/Espe (Ke), Fuji II LC/GC Corp (Fj), F2000/3M (F2), Surefil/Dentsply (Su) or a control: Filtek Z250/3M (Z2). Ten experimental groups were made to test the association among the five restorative systems and two dentifrices: with F - (Sensodyne Baking Soda) or without F- (Sensodyne Original) (n = 18). After surface polishing, a 1 mm-wide margin around the restorations was demarcated and initial dentin surface Knoop microhardness values (KHNi) were obtained. The specimens were submitted to a pH-cycling model, and to applications of slurries of dentifrice. Afterwards the final dentin surface Knoop microhardness values (KHNf) were measured. Results. The differences between KHNi and KHNf, and the covariate KHNi were considered by the ANCOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). The interaction between restorative system and dentifrice was statistically significant (p = 0.0026). All restorative systems provided some protection against artificial caries challenge when associated with the fluoride-containing dentifrice treatment. The means (standard deviation) of reductions in Knoop hardness values for systems associated with the fluoride-containing dentifrice were: Ke: 40.0(1.02)a, Fj: 41.9(1.02)b, F2: 43.3(1.04)c, Su: 43.5(1.00)c, Z2: 44.0(1.02)c; and with the non-fluoride-containing dentifrice were: Ke: 42.9(1.02)a, Fj: 44.7(1.01)b, F2: 45.2(1.09)bc, Su: 46.0(0.99)c, Z2: 46.6(0.99)c (statistical differences were expressed by different letters). Conclusion. The cariostatic effect shown by the fluoride-containing dentifrice could enhance that shown by Ketac-fil and Fuji II LC, and could mask that shown by F2000. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Microhardness and fluoride release of restorative materials in different storage media

This study evaluated the surface microhardness and fluoride release of 5 restorative materials - Ketac-Fil Plus, Vitremer, Fuji II LC, Freedom and Fluorofil - in two storage media: distilled/deionized water and a pH-cycling (pH 4.6). Twelve specimens of each material, were fabricated and the initial surface microhardness (ISM) was determined in a Shimadzu HMV-2000 microhardness tester (static load Knoop). The specimens were submitted to 6- or 18-h cycles in the tested media. The solutions were refreshed at the end of each cycle. All solutions were stored for further analysis. After 15-day storage, the final surface microhardness (FSM) and fluoride release were measured. Fluoride dose was measured with a fluoride-specific electrode (Orion 9609-BN) and digital ion analyzer (Orion 720 A). The variables ISM, FSM and fluoride release were analyzed statistically by analysis of variance and Tukey's test (p<0.05). There was significant difference in FSM between the storage media for Vitremer (pH 4.6 = 40.2 ± 1.5; water = 42.6 ± 1.4), Ketac-Fil Plus (pH 4.6 = 73.4 ± 2.7; water = 58.2 ± 1.3) and Fluorofil (pH 4.6 = 44.3 ± 1.8; water = 38.4 ± 1.0). Ketac-Fil Plus (9.9 ± 18.0) and Fluorofil (4.4 ± 1.3) presented higher fluoride release in water, whereas Vitremer (7.4 ± 7.1), Fuji II LC (5.7 ± 4.7) and Freedom (2.1 ± 1.7) had higher fluoride release at pH 4.6. Microhardness and fluoride release of the tested restorative materials varied according to the storage medium.

Length of resin tags in pit-and-fissure sealants: all-in-one self-etching adhesive vs phosphoric acid etching.

PURPOSE: To investigate the penetration (tags) of adhesive materials into enamel etched with phosphoric acid or treated with a self-etching adhesive, before application of a pit-and-fissure sealant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample comprised six study groups with six specimens each. Before pit-and-fissure sealing with the materials Clinpro SealantTM (Groups I and II), Vitro Seal ALPHA (Groups III and IV) and Fuji II LC (Groups V and VI), the teeth in Groups I, III, and V were etched with 35% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds. Teeth in Groups II, IV, and VI received application of the self-etching adhesive Adper Prompt L-Pop. The treated teeth were sectioned buccolingually, ground to 100-microm thickness, decalcified, and analyzed by conventional light microscopy at 400x magnification. RESULTS: The teeth etched with phosphoric acid exhibited significantly greater penetration than specimens treated with self-etching adhesive. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: When compared with enamel treated with a self-etching adhesive, the penetration (tags) of adhesive materials into enamel was greater when applied on enamel etched with phosphoric acid.

In vitro-evaluation of secondary caries formation around restoration.

The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate demineralization around restorations. Class V preparations were made on the buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth. TPH (Group 1), Fuji II LC (Group 2), Tetric (Group 3), Dyract (Group 4), GS 80 (Group 5) and Chelon Fil (Group 6) were randomly placed in equal numbers of teeth. The teeth were submitted to a pH-cycling model associated with a thermocycling model. Sections were made and the specimens were examined for the presence of demineralization under polarized light microscopy. Demineralization was significantly reduced with Chelon Fil (Group 6). Furthermore, a similar inhibitory effect on the development of demineralization was observed in Groups 2, 4 and 5.

Influence of bleaching treatment on flexural resistance of hybrid materials.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the flexural resistance of three types of restorative materials: compomer (Freedom), resin-modified glass-ionomer (Vitremer) and composite resin (Esthet-X), observing whether the application of bleaching agent can cause alterations of their flexural properties. Sixty samples were made using a 10 x 1 x 1 mm brass mold, and divided into three groups: G1- Freedom (SDI); G2- Vitremer (3M ESPE); G3- Esthet-X (Dentsply). On half of the samples of each group (10 samples) the bleaching treatment was applied and the other half used as control, was stored in distilled water at a temperature of 37 degrees C. Whiteness HP Maxx bleaching system was applied on the sample surface following the manufacturer's recommendations, simulating the bleaching treatment at the clinic. After this period, a flexural strength (three-point bending) test was conducted using (EMIC DL 1000) machine until the samples fractured. The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey tests. Of the restorative materials studied, G3-(87.24 +/- 31.40 MPa) presented the highest flexural strength, followed by G1-(61.67 +/- 21.32 MPa) and G2-(61.67 +/- 21.32 MPa). There was a statistical difference in flexural strength after the bleaching treatment. It was concluded that the use of a beaching agent can promote significant alteration of the flexural strength of these restorative materials.

Compressive strength of esthetic restorative materials polymerized with quartz-tungsten-halogen light and blue LED

Este estudo comparou a resistência à compressão de uma resina composta e de um compômero, fotoativados com luz halógena convencional de quarto-tungstênio (QTH) (XL 300, 3M/SPE) e LED azul (SmartLite PS; Dentsply/De Trey). Foram confeccionados 40 espécimes em forma de disco usando uma matriz bipartida de politetrafluoretileno (4,0 mm de diâmetro x 8,0 mm de altura) em que o material foi inserido incrementalmente. O tempo de polimerização de cada incremento foi de 40 s para a luz halógena convencional e de 10 s para o LED. Os espécimes foram aleatoriamente alocados em 4 grupos (n=10), de acordo com a fonte de luz e com o material restaurador. Depois de armazenadas em água destilada a 37°C ± 2°C por 24 h, a resistência à compressão dos espécimes foi testada em uma máquina universal de ensaios com célula de carga de 500 kgf a uma velocidade de carregamento de 0,5 mm/min. Os dados (em MPa) foram analisados estatisticamente por ANOVA e teste de Student-Newman-Keuls (p<0,05). Para a resina composta, a fotopolimerização com luz halógena não produziu diferença estatisticamente significante (p>0,05) em sua resistência à compressão quando comparada à fotopolimerização com LED. Contudo, a fotopolimerização do compômero com a luz halógena resultou em uma resistência à compressão significativamente maior que a feita o LED (p>0,05). A resina composta apresentou resistência à compressão significativamente maior que a do compômero, independente da fonte de luz. Concluiu-se que a resistência à compressão dos materiais fotopolimerizados com luz halógena e LED foi influenciada pela densidade de energia empregada e pela composição química dos materiais restauradores estéticos.

Avaliação do selamento de ápices radiculares retrobturados ou recobertos com diferentes materiais mediante infiltração marginal por corante e análise da interface em microscopia eletrônica de varredura

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the apical sealing ability and the marginal adaptation of five dental materials used in retrofillings or applied to the bevelled root surface. One hundred and forty extracted single rooted human teeth were used, divided into seven groups of twenty each. ln the first, second, third and fourth groups, the teeth were apicoectomized, submitted to cavity preparations and retrofilled with one of the following materiais: zinc free silver amalgam, a dentin bonding system plus composite resin, a glass ionomer cement ora compomer. In the fifth, sixth and seventh groups, the teeth were apicoectomized and capped on the bevelled root surface with one of the following materiais: a dentin bonding system plus composite resin, a glass ionomer cement or a compomer. Two specimens of each experimental group were evaluated for the marginal adaptation using scanning electron microscopy. The remaining 126 specimens were immersed in 2% methylene blue dye, stored for one week at 37ºC and the infiltration was evaluated with a stereomicroscope. The results showed that the glass ionomer cement presented the lowest values of marginal infiltration when used as retrofilling material, with a significant statistical difference when compared with the others tested materials. When used as apical capping, the glass ionomer cement and the compomer were equivalent and significantly better than the dentin bonding system plus composite resin. Using scanning electron microscopy, all the materials showed some slight adjustment problem. ln the retrofilling, the smallest marginal gaps were observed with the compomer and the dentin bonding system plus composite resin, while the largest were observed with the glass ionomer cement and zinc free silver amalgam. ln the apical capping, the smallest marginal gaps were observed with the compomer and the dentin bonding system plus composite resin and ...

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.