Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the microleakage of atraumatic glass ionomer restorations with and without silver diammine fluoride (SDF) application. Restorations with SDF are termed silver-modified atraumatic restorations (SMART). Methods: Sixty carious extracted permanent teeth were randomly allocated to two SMART groups and two control groups (n equals 15 per group) for a total of four groups. After selective caries removal, test specimens were treated with 38 percent SDF and polyacrylic acid conditioner was applied and rinsed; teeth were restored with Fuji IX GP® glass ionomer (n equals 15) or with SMART Advantage™ glass ionomer (SAGI; n equals 15). For control groups, specimens were restored with their respective GI material after selective caries removal, both without SDF. Restored teeth were placed in Dulbecco's Phosphate-Buffered Saline solution at 37 degrees Celsius for 24 hours. Teeth were thermocycled between five and 55 degrees Celsius for 1,000 cycles, stained with two percent basic fuchsin, sectioned, and visually inspected for microleakage utilizing stereomicroscopy on a four-point scale. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks using Dunn's method (P<0.05). Results: Microleakage between the two SMART restoration groups was insignificant. SAGI alone demonstrated significantly more microleakage than all other groups. There was no statistical significance between the Fuji IX GP® control group and the two SMART restoration groups. Conclusions: This in vitro study indicated that silver diammine fluoride placed before glass ionomer restoration does not increase microleakage. Polyacrylic acid may be used after SDF placement without increasing microleakage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate whether reduced curing performance due to compromised light tip placement can be mitigated by bulk-fill composite and/or high-intensity curing light. Methods: Plastic discs with 2.5-mm deep cavities were filled with a conventional (Mosaic™) or bulk-fill (Tetric® PowerFill) composite and cured with a BluePhase® PowerCure curing light at normal and high-power settings, with light tip placement at distance and/or 45 degree angle. Curing time and irradiance were three, five, or 10 seconds at 1,200, 2,000, or 3,000 mW/cm2 (10 samples). After 24 hours, Vickers hardness on top and bottom surfaces was measured and analyzed using analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons (α<0.05). Results: All top surfaces had higher hardness than bottom surfaces. Cure (bottom-to-top hardness ratio) was significantly affected by material, distance/angle, and curing regimen (P<0.001), and generally decreased when tip distance and angle increased. Bottom-to-top hardness ratios of bulk-fill composite (0.42 to 0.66) were significantly higher than those of conventional composite (0.20 to 0.31). High-power curing significantly increased bulk-fill's curing performance as it was specifically formulated for this curing light. Conclusions: Increased light tip distance and angle compromised composite curing. Bulk-fill composite cured better at the bottom of the restoration than conventional composite regardless of light tip distance/angle. High-power light curing improved curing performance only in bulk-fill composite. Nevertheless, due to low bottom-to-top ratios (0.20 to 0.66) across all samples, even under ideal light tip placement, both composites should be cured in increments of less than 2.5 mm.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are refractory anthropogenic chemicals and current treatment processes at municipal water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) cannot efficiently degrade them, hence, these chemicals cycle through the environment. Certain PFAS can be concentrated in biosolids from WRRFs and are commonly land applied for beneficial reuse. Given recent advances in measurement of PFAS, documentation of the range of concentrations in pre-stabilized sludge and stabilized biosolids is critical to evaluating treatment best practices and assessing potential human health and ecological risks. In this study, pre-stabilized sludge and post-stabilized biosolids samples were collected from 12 major WRRFs across the United States. PFAS were analyzed using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method SW846-3500C/537.1, and Draft EPA Method 1633, by one commercial laboratory and two university research laboratories, respectively. Results comparison among laboratories demonstrated statistical differences in PFAS concentrations among split samples. For example, 5:3 FTCA (fluorotelomer carboxylic acid) concentrations in post-stabilized sludge at Lab 1 were measured at 21 ng/g (dry), while they were detected at 151 ng/g (dry) in Lab 3. Further, higher PFAS concentrations were observed in post-stabilized biosolids compared to pre-stabilized sludges, regardless of the laboratory or analysis method, even when solids destruction through solids stabilization was considered. Further research is required to refine methods for analyses of PFAS in sludge and biosolids samples from WRRFs prior to being used for development of regulatory actions as well as understanding how various treatment protocols could impact concentrations of PFAS in land-applied biosolids., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Environmental Quality published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the microleakage of atraumatic glass ionomer restorations with and without silver diammine fluoride (SDF) application. Restorations with SDF are termed silver-modified atraumatic restorations (SMART). Methods: Sixty carious extracted permanent teeth were randomly allocated to two SMART groups and two control groups (n equals 15 per group) for a total of four groups. After selective caries removal, test specimens were treated with 38 percent SDF and polyacrylic acid conditioner was applied and rinsed; teeth were restored with Fuji IX GP® glass ionomer (n equals 15) or with SMART Advantage™ glass ionomer (SAGI; n equals 15). For control groups, specimens were restored with their respective GI material after selective caries removal, both without SDF. Restored teeth were placed in Dulbecco's Phosphate-Buffered Saline solution at 37 degrees Celsius for 24 hours. Teeth were thermocycled between five and 55 degrees Celsius for 1,000 cycles, stained with two percent basic fuchsin, sectioned, and visually inspected for microleakage utilizing stereomicroscopy on a four-point scale. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks using Dunn's method (P<0.05). Results: Microleakage between the two SMART restoration groups was insignificant. SAGI alone demonstrated significantly more microleakage than all other groups. There was no statistical significance between the Fuji IX GP® control group and the two SMART restoration groups. Conclusions: This in vitro study indicated that silver diammine fluoride placed before glass ionomer restoration does not increase microleakage. Polyacrylic acid may be used after SDF placement without increasing microleakage.