Search

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of preprocedural mouthrinses used against COVID-19 on enamel/dentin shear bond strength (SBS) of a universal adhesive with different application str...

SUMMARY Objective: To evaluate the clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative compared with a resin composite in the restoration of large and deep Class II cavities after 24 months. Methods and Materials: A total of 108 extended size, with the width of the proximal box not interfering with the peak of the cusps and the proximal box in occlusion, Class II lesions in 37 patients were either restored with a glass hybrid restorative or with a micro-hybrid composite resin in combination with selective etching by two experienced operators according to the manufacturer's instructions. Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and at the six-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month recalls according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. Negative replicas at each recall were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to examine surface characteristics. Data were analyzed statistically. Results: After 24 months, 90 restorations were evaluated in 32 patients (recall rate: 86.5%). Four glass hybrid restorations were missing; three were due to bulk and one was due to proximal fracture at 12 months. Only six restorations were scored as bravo at baseline and at the six-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month recalls for color (p0.05). SEM observations exhibited acceptable surface and marginal adaptation characteristics for both restorative materials at 24 months. Conclusions: Although glass hybrid restorations showed significant mismatch in color, both restorative materials exhibited successful performance for the restoration of large Class II cavities after 24 months.

This study aims to compare the performance of a bulk-fill and a nanofill resin composite in class II restorations after 6 years.Fifty patients having at least two class II carious lesions were recruited for the study. One lesion in each patient was randomly assigned to be restored using either the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TB) or Filtek Ultimate (FU) resin composites with their respective adhesives. One hundred four restorations were placed by two calibrated operators. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and annually over the course of 6 years by two examiners using modified USPHS criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square and Cochran Q tests (p 0.05).Sixty-six restorations in 33 patients were evaluated after 6 years. Only one restoration was lost from FU group at 5 years. At the end of 6 years, marginal discoloration was observed in three (9.1%) TB and eight (36.4%) FU restorations creating a significant difference between the groups (p 0.05). The FU group showed a significant increase in marginal discoloration at 6 years from the baseline (p 0.05). Marginal adaptation was rated as Bravo for 9.1% and 24.2% of TB and FU restorations, respectively (p 0.05). Significant degradation was observed within each group in terms of marginal adaptation (p 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for the other criteria tested (p 0.05).Bulk-fill restorations performed better for marginal discoloration. The remaining clinical performance criteria of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations were similar after 6 years.Bulk-fill resin might be a better alternative to incrementally placed restorative in terms of marginal discoloration under clinical conditions.

Objective: The objective of the study was to compare compressive strengths of two glass ionomerbased materials, with and without a light-cured, nano-filled coating, after cyclic loading and thermocycling. Materials and methods: To determine compressive strength of new restorative materials over a longer period of time, materials were analysed under simulated conditions where cyclic loading replicated masticatory loading and thermocycling simulated thermal oscillations in the oral cavity. Four groups of samples (n=7)—(1) Equia Fil (GC, Tokyo, Japan) uncoated; (2) Equia Fil coated with Equia Coat (GC, Tokyo, Japan); (3) Equia Forte Fil (GC, Tokyo, Japan) uncoated; and (4) Equia Forte Fil coated with Equia Forte coat (GC, Tokyo, Japan)—were subjected to cyclic loading (240,000 cycles) using a chewing simulator (MOD, Esetron Smart Robotechnologies, Ankara, Turkey). Results: Compressive strength measurements were performed according to ISO 9917-1:2007, using the universal mechanical testing machine (Instron, Lloyd, UK). Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis was performed after thermocycling. There were no statistically significant differences between Equia Fil and Equia Forte Fil irrespective of the coating (p

To compare the clinical behavior of a universal light-curing, ultra-fine particle hybrid composite and successor of this material in class I and II cavities after 60 months.Forty patients (21 females, 19 males) with ages ranging between 18 and 38 years (23.15 ± 5.15) received 80 (13 Cl I and 67 Cl II) resin composite restorations (Charisma/Charisma Classic, Kulzer GmbH) in combination with an etch and rinse adhesive system (Gluma 2Bond) under rubber dam isolation. Two experienced operators performed all the restorations. Restorations were evaluated by the other two examiners according to the FDI criteria at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. Surface characteristics of one restoration selected randomly were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at each recall. Data were analyzed statistically (p 0.05).After 60 months, recall rate was 90%. None of the restorations failed. Three restorations from Charisma and 4 from the Charisma Classic group showed minor surface staining. Twelve Charisma and 14 Charisma Classic restorations were scored as 2 for margin staining. Four restorations from both groups showed minor shade deviations but no significant difference was observed between the two restorative materials for any criteria evaluated after 60 months (p 0.05). SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings.Both materials exhibited clinically similar and successful performance over the 60-month observation period.A new formulation of resin composite may not always perform better clinical performances.ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02888873.

To compare the clinical performance of the universal adhesive used in etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) adhesive strategies for 48-month in class II bulk-fill restorations.A total of 84 class II bulk-fill resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill) restorations were placed in 35 participants by one operator using the universal adhesive's (Adhese Universal VivaPen) etch-and-rinse or self-etch mode randomly. The restorations were evaluated by two calibrated examiners at baseline and after 6-, 12-, 24-, 36- and 48-month using modified USPHS criteria. The comparison of the two adhesive strategies for each evaluation criteria was performed with the chi-square test. The baseline scores were compared with those at the recalls using the Friedman and Cochran's Q-test (p .05).At 48-month, 74 restorations were evaluated in 30 participants (recall rate: 85.7%). Marginal discoloration was statistically more frequent in SE approach (p .05), whereas no significant difference was observed between the two strategies in terms of marginal adaptation (p .05). There were statistically significant differences between the baseline and 48-month recall in the SE group in terms of marginal adaptation and discoloration (p .05). In ER group, significant differences were found between baseline and 48-month only for marginal adaptation (p .05). None of the restorations showed post-operative sensitivity. Secondary caries was observed in one restoration from SE group.The tested bulk-fill restorative exhibited better clinical performance only in terms of marginal discoloration when the universal adhesive was used with ER strategy.Though ER approach of the tested universal adhesive appears to be advantageous in terms of marginal discoloration, both adhesive strategies had similar impact on the clinical success of bulk-fill resin restorations.

The purpose of this study was to examine the bond strength of three different universal adhesives on enamel after different aging periods. Ninety enamel specimens were prepared and randomly assigned into three groups according to different universal adhesive systems (n = 30): iBOND Universal (IB), G-Premio Bond (GP), Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CU). All adhesives were applied at etch&rinse mode. A cylinder-shaped resin composite was placed on enamel surfaces and light cured. Then all specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h and divided into 3 thermal cycling protocol groups (n = 10): No thermal cycling (NTC), 10,000 thermal cycles (10TC), 40,000 thermal cycles (40TC). Specimens were subjected to shear bond strength (SBS) test at a universal testing machine. Failure modes were determined and SEM analyses were performed for each failure mode. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD test. The highest SBS values were observed at NTC groups. The 40TC groups sho...

The aim of this randomized, controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the performances of three different universal adhesives using a flowable universal composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over an 18-month period. Eighteen participants recieved 99 restorations from a single operator. NCCLs were divided into three groups according to adhesive systems used: Clearfil Universal Bond (CU), iBOND Universal (IU), and G-Premio Bond (GP). No enamel bevel was placed and no mechanical retention was created for the NCCLs. Prior to adhesive procedures, selective etching was performed with 37% phosphoric acid. Adhesive systems were applied following manufacturers’ instructions and the lesions were restored with a flowable composite resin (G-aenial Universal Flo). Restorations were finished and polished immediately after placement and scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, surface texture, and color match using modified USPHS criteria after a week (baseline) and 6, 12, and 18 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests. The 18-month recall rate was 88.8% and retention rates for CU, IU, and GP were 100%, 96.8%, and 100%, respectively. No restorations exhibited post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries. After 18 months, CU, IU, and GP groups showed similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (CU 93.1%, IU 90%, GP 81.8%) and marginal discoloration (CU 100%, IU 90%, GP 87.9%). A total of ten (CU 2, IU 3, GP 5) restorations exhibited bravo scores for surface texture and three (CU 2, GP 1) restorations showed bravo score for color match. No statistical differences were found among the tested adhesives for any criteria evaluated (p > 0.05). The three adhesive systems demonstrated similar performances during the 18-month follow-up in the restoration of NCCLs. Universal adhesives could be used successfully in the restoration of NCCLs.

SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention rates of a fissure sealant placed using different adhesive protocols over 24 months. Twenty-four subjects with no restorations or caries received fissure sealants (Clinpro Sealant, 3M ESPE) placed using different adhesive protocols. A total of 292 sealants were placed as follows by two previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers (n=73): group I, acid-etch/without adhesive; group II, with a self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE); group III, with an etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE); group IV, with acid + self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond). Two other calibrated examiners independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at six-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = total retention, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. Pearson's χ2 test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants for each evaluation period. At the end of 24 months, total retention rates were 57.5%, 27.4%, 84.9%, and 76.7% in the acid-etch, self-etch adhesive, etch-and-rinse adhesive, and acid + self-etch adhesive groups, respectively. Although there were no statistically significant differences between the retention rates among the adhesive protocols at 6 months (p=0.684), significant differences were observed at the 12-, 18-, and 24-month evaluations. At 24 months, the lowest retention rates were observed in the self-etch group (p

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different modeling agents on the surface microhardness (Vickers hardness number; VHN), roughness (Ra), and color change (ΔE) of a nano-hybrid composite with or without exposure to discoloration by coffee. Materials and Methods Sixty-four cylinder-shaped nano-hybrid composite specimens were prepared using a Teflon mold. The specimens' surfaces were prepared according to the following groups: group 1, no modeling agent; group 2, Modeling Liquid; group 3, a universal adhesive (G-Premio Bond); and group 4, the first step of a 2-step self-adhesive system (OptiBond XTR). Specimens were randomly allocated into 2 groups (n = 8) according to the storage medium (distilled water or coffee). VHN, Ra, and ΔE were measured at 24 hours, 1 week, and 6 weeks. The Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons was used for statistical analysis (α = 0.05). Results Storage time did not influence the VHN of the nano-hybrid composite in any group (p > 0.05). OptiBond XTR Primer application affected the VHN negatively in all investigated storage medium and time conditions (p < 0.05). Modeling Liquid application yielded improved Ra values for the specimens stored in coffee at each time point (p < 0.05). Modeling Liquid application was associated with the lowest ΔE values in all investigated storage medium and time conditions (p < 0.05). Conclusion Different types of modeling agents could affect the surface properties and discoloration of nano-hybrid composites.

To evaluate the mechanical properties of a glass hybrid (GH) restorative system (EQUIA Forte/GC) and compare it with a microhybrid composite (G-aenial Posterior/GC) by compressive strength (CS) and fracture resistance (FR) tests.Cylindrical specimens were subjected to a CS test (n = 12). There were about 48 mandibular molars were used for a FR test and divided into four groups: Group 1 (positive control), sound teeth; Group 2 (negative control), extended size Class 2 cavities prepared on the mesial surfaces of teeth; Group 3, extended size Class 2 cavities restored with a composite; and Group 4, extended size Class 2 cavities restored with GH. Specimens were subjected to loading until a fracture occurred. Data were analyzed statistically (α = 0.05).The fracture modes were examined by scanning electron microscope (SEM). The CS values of the composite and GH were 278.20 ± 17.34 MPa and 164.62 ± 25.72 MPa, respectively (P0.05). No differences were observed between the FR of restored groups (P0.05).The GH exhibited sufficient mechanical properties as a restorative material, and could be preferred for extensive caries lesions on posterior teeth.

To evaluate the durability of a glass ionomer restorative material in Class I and Class II cavities during 10 years compared with a micro filled composite resin.Fifty-nine participants (mean age 24 years) received 140 (80 Class I and 60 Class II) glass ionomer (GI) or composite resin (CR) restorations. Evaluation was performed with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and yearly during the 10 years. Data were analyzed with Cohran's Q and McNemar's tests.Fifty-one patients and 124 restorations (61 GI / 38 Class I - 23 Class II, 63 CR / 38 Class I, 25 Class II) were evaluated after 10 years. The recall rate was 86.4%. The overall clinical recall rate of restorations was 88.6%. The success rate of Class I and II restorations were calculated as 100% for both materials. The cumulative failure rate (CRF) of all Cl I and Cl II GI restorations was 3.17% in total, but CFR was 8 % for Cl II GI restorations. A significant difference was observed between the marginal discoloration scores of restorations at 10 years (p = 0.022). No significant difference was seen between two restorative materials in terms of marginal adaptation (p 0.05). A significant change was seen in color match of GI restorations at 10 years (p 0.05). No significant change was found for the anatomical form, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, surface texture, and retention for either restorative material (p 0.05).Both tested restorative materials showed an acceptable success rate in the restoration of Class I and Class II cavities during the 10-year follow up.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a glass ionomer (GI) restorative system in the restoration of posterior teeth compared with a micro-filled hybrid posterior composite.A total of 140 (80 Cl1 and 60 Cl2) lesions in 59 patients were restored with a GI system (Equia) or a micro hybrid composite (Gradia Direct). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during 6 years according to the modified-USPHS criteria. Negative replicas at each recall were observed under SEM to evaluate surface characteristics. Data were analyzed with Cohcran's Q and McNemar's tests (p 0.05).One hundred fifteen (70 Cl1 and 45 Cl2) restorations were evaluated in 47 patients with a recall rate of 79.6% at 6 years. Significant differences were found in marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration for both restorative materials for Cl1 and Cl2 restorations (p 0.05). However, none of the materials were superior to the other (p 0.05). A significant decrease in color match was observed in Equia restorations (p 0.05). Only one Cl2 Equia restoration was missing at 3 years and another one at 4 years. No failures were observed at 5 and 6 years. Both materials exhibited clinically successful performance after 6 years. SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings.Both materials showed a good clinical performance for the restoration of posterior teeth during the 6-year evaluation.The clinical effectiveness of Equia and Gradia Direct Posterior was acceptable in Cl1 and Cl2 cavities subsequent to 6-year evaluation.

In this study the mechanical behavior and water sorption (Ws) of experimental glass-ionomer-cements (GICs) with hydroxyapatite (HA) or calcium fluorapatite (CFA) prototype formulations were examined. Specimens from two experimental and one commercially available GIC were prepared in three protocols ; (1) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, (2) with coating and (3) with heat application. The specimens were stored in distilled water or artificial saliva at 37°C for 7- and 30-days. Flexural strength (FS), Vickers hardness (VHN) and Ws of GICs were evaluated. Experimental GICs showed higher FS values than commercial GIC (p0.05). The GICs with HA or CFA formulations might represent a promising approach due to their FS, VHN and Ws characteristics.

Amaç: Bu in vitro çalışmada kompozit restorasyonların şekillendirilmesinde kullanılan farklı tiplerdeki rezin içerikli modelasyon likitlerinin mikrohibrit bir kompozitin yüzey mikrosertliğine, pürüzlülüğüne ve renk değişimine olan etkisini incelemek amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmada kullanılmak üzere 12 mm çapında ve 2 mm yüksekliğinde Teflon kalıp ile silindir şeklinde 64 adet mikrohibrit kompozit (Essentia Universal, GC, Tokyo, Japonya) örnek şu şekilde gruplara göre hazırlandı; Grup 1: Kontrol (modelasyon likidi kullanılmadan), Grup 2: Modeling Liquid (GC), Grup 3: G-Premio Bond (GC), Grup 4: OptiBond XTR Primer (KavoKerr). Şekillendirmede kullanılan modelasyon likitleri sadece yerleştirilirken mikrohibrit kompozitin yüzeyine uygulandı ve örneklerin üst yüzeyine şeffaf bant yerleştirildi, sonra 20 sn polimerize edildi. Örneklere 2500-3000 gritlik SiC-kağıtlar ile polisaj yapıldı ve 37°C’deki inkübatörde saklanma ortamına göre (distile su vaya kahve) rastgele 2 gruba ayrıldı (n=8). Yüzey mikrosertliği (VHN), pürüzlülüğü (Ra) ve renk değişimi (ΔE) 24 saat, 1 hafta ve 6 hafta sonra ölçüldü. Veriler ANOVA ve Kruskall Wallis testleri ile analiz edildi (p=0.05). Bulgular: Saklama ortamı ve zaman mikrohibrit kompozitin yüzey mikrosertliğini hiçbir grupta etkilemedi (p>0.05). Modeling Liquid uygulanması örnekler kahvede saklandığında tüm saklama süreleri için örneklerin pürüzlüğünü olumlu yönde etkiledi (p, Background: To investigate the effect of different type of modeling agents on surface microhardness, roughness and color change of a micro-hybrid composite stored in coffee. Methods: Total of 64 cylinder-shaped micro-hybrid composite (Essentia Universal, GC, Tokyo, Japan) specimens were prepared using a Teflon mold (12 mm diameter x 2 mm thickness) according to the following groups; Group 1: Control (no modeling agent), Group 2: Modeling Liquid (GC), Group 3: G-Premio Bond (GC), Group 4: OptiBond XTR Primer (KavoKerr). The modeling agents was only applied to the micro-hybrid composite surface while placing, and a Mylar strip was used at top of the specimens, then polymerized for 20 sec. The specimens were polished with 2500-3000 grid SiC-papers and randomly divided into 2 groups (n=8) according to the storage media: distilled water or coffee in an incubator at 37°C. Surface microhardness (VHN), roughness (Ra), and color change (ΔE) was measured 24h, 1-week and 6-week after storage. Data was analyzed with ANOVA and Kruskall Wallis tests (p=0.05). Results: Storage media and time didn’t influence the VHN of the micro-hybrid composite in each group (p>0.05). Modeling Liquid application was improved Ra values when the specimens stored in coffee at each storage time (p

Objectives The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the bond strength of 2 universal adhesives used in different application modes to bleached enamel. Materials and Methods Extracted 160 sound human incisors were used for the study. Teeth were divided into 4 treatment groups: No treatment, 35% hydrogen peroxide, 16% carbamid peroxide, 7.5% carbamid peroxide. After bleaching treatments, groups were divided into subgroups according to the adhesive systems used and application modes (n = 10): 1) Single Bond Universal, etch and rinse mode; 2) Single Bond Universal, self-etch mode; 3) Gluma Universal, etch and rinse mode; 4) Gluma Universal, self-etch mode. After adhesive procedures nanohybrid composite resin cylinders were bonded to the enamel surfaces. All specimens were subjected to shear bond strength (SBS) test after thermocycling. Data were analyzed using a 3-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test. Results No significant difference were found among bleaching groups (35% hydrogen peroxide, 16% carbamid peroxide, 7.5% carbamid peroxide, and no treatment groups) in the mean SBS values. There was also no difference in SBS values between Single Bond Universal and Gluma Universal at same application modes, whereas self-etch mode showed significantly lower SBS values than etch and rinse mode (p < 0.05). Conclusions The bonding performance of the universal adhesives was enhanced with the etch and rinse mode application to bleached enamel and non-bleached enamel.

To investigate in vitro the effect of extremely high irradiance light-emitting diode (LED) light curing units (LCU) with different exposure distances and curing modes on the micromechanical properties of a nano hybrid resin based composite.72 resin based composite (RBC) (Kalore) specimens with 2 mm thickness were cured using two high irradiance LED LCUs (Bluephase 20i and FlashMax P3) at 0 and 7 mm exposure distances. The curing conditions were:a) Bluephase 20i - 10 seconds - High power; b) Bluephase 20i - 15 seconds - High power; c) Bluephase 20i - 5 seconds - Turbo; d) Bluephase 20i - 15 seconds - Soft start; e) FlashMax P3 - 4 mm tip cover - 3 seconds; f) FlashMax P3 - without tip cover - 3 seconds. The incident and transmitted irradiance and radiant exposure were evaluated in real time during curing, with a radiometer (MARC Resin Calibrator). The micromechanical properties (Vickers hardness, HV and indentation modulus, E) were measured with an automatic universal hardness indenter after storing specimens for 24 hours in distilled water. Data were analyzed with one- and two-way ANOVA tests followed by Tukey test and partial eta-square statistics (α= 0.05).For both LCUs, incident irradiance decreased progressively with increased exposure distance, reaching at 7 mm exposure distance less than 50% of the value measured when the LCU was applied directly on specimen's surface. In descending order of strength of their effects, the parameters incident irradiance (HV; η P2 =0.828, E; 0.693), LCU (HV, 0.257, E, 0.043) and exposure distance (HV, 0.031, E, 0.028) were significant factors affecting HV and E (P0.05). The localized radiant exposure (the incident and transmitted) as well as the position of HV and E measurements (top-bottom of the specimen) were additional factors affecting significantly only HV (P0.05), but not E (P0.05).Extremely high irradiances were less efficient in adequate curing of the analyzed nano hybrid composite. Using a protection tip, as clinically indicated, reduces the irradiance of FlashMax P3 from 7,681.7 (160.53) mW/cm2; to 3052.5 (71.61) mW/cm2;.

SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a bulk fill resin composite in class II restorations. Methods and Materials: In accordance with a split-mouth design, 50 patients received at least one pair of restorations, restored with a nanofill resin composite (Filtek Ultimate [FU]) and with a bulk fill resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill [TB]). Each restorative resin was used with its respective adhesive system according to the manufacturers' instructions. A total of 104 class II restorations were placed by two operators. The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline and at six, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months using modified US Public Health Service Ryge criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the chi-square test (α=0.05). The baseline scores were compared with those at the recall visits using the Cochran Q-test. Results: At six, 12, 18, and 24 months, the recall rate was 100%, 98%, 94%, and 82%, respectively, with a retention rate of 100%. At 36 months, 81 restorations were evaluated in 39 patients with a recall rate of 78%. For marginal adaptation, four restorations from the TB group and 10 from the FU group rated as Bravo. Two restorations from the TB and eight restorations from the FU group showed marginal discoloration. There were statistically significant differences between the two restorative resins in terms of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration (p0.05). One restored tooth from the FU group was crowned. The retention rates for the TB and the FU groups were 100%. In the FU group, two restorations showed slightly rough surfaces, and two showed a slight mismatch in color. None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or loss of anatomic form. Conclusions: The tested bulk fill restorative resin demonstrated better clinical performance in terms of marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation.

SUMMARY Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system compared with a microfilled hybrid posterior composite in a four-year randomized clinical trial. Methods A total of 140 (80 Class 1 and 60 Class 2) lesions in 59 patients were either restored with a glass ionomer restorative system (Equia, GC, Tokyo, Japan), which was a combination of a packable glass ionomer (Equia Fil, GC) and a self-adhesive nanofilled coating (Equia Coat, GC), or with a microfilled hybrid composite (Gradia Direct Posterior, GC) in combination with a self-etch adhesive (G-Bond, GC) by two experienced operators according to the manufacturer's instructions. Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and at one, two, three, and four years postrestoration according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. Polyvinyl siloxane impression negative replicas at each recall were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to evaluate surface characteristics. The statistical analyses were carried out with McNemar, Pearson Chi-square, and Cochran Q- tests (p Results After four years, 126 (76 Class 1 and 50 Class 2) restorations were evaluated in 52 patients, with a recall rate of 88.1%. None of the restorations showed trends to downgrade in anatomical form, secondary caries, surface texture, postoperative sensitivity, and color match (p>0.05). Significant differences in marginal adaptation and discoloration were found at four years compared to baseline for both restorative materials for Class 1 and Class 2 restorations (p0.05). SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings. Conclusions The use of both materials for the restoration of posterior teeth exhibited a similar and clinically successful performance after four years.

Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of the fluorescence-aided caries excavation (FACE) device to detect residual caries by comparing conventional methods in vivo. Materials and Methods A total of 301 females and 202 males with carious teeth participated in this study. The cavity preparations were done by grade 4 (Group 1, 154 teeth), grade 5 (Group 2, 176 teeth), and postgraduate (Group 3, 173 teeth) students. After caries excavation using a handpiece and hand instruments, the presence of residual caries was evaluated by 2 investigators who were previously calibrated for visual-tactile assessment with and without magnifying glasses and trained in the use of a FACE device. The tooth number, cavity type, and presence or absence of residual caries were recorded. The data were analyzed using the Chi-square test, the Fisher's Exact test, or the McNemar test as appropriate. Kappa statistics was used for calibration. In all tests, the level of significance was set at p = 0.05. Results Almost half of the cavities prepared were Class II (Class I, 20.9%; Class II, 48.9%; Class III, 20.1%; Class IV, 3.4%; Class V, 6.8%). Higher numbers of cavities left with caries were observed in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3 for all examination methods. Significant differences were found between visual inspection with or without magnifying glasses and inspection with a FACE device for all groups (p < 0.001). More residual caries were detected through inspection with a FACE device (46.5%) than through either visual inspection (31.8%) or inspection with a magnifying glass (37.6%). Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, the FACE device may be an effective method for the detection of residual caries.