RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of stainless-steel brackets using three different light curing units. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using three LED curing units (3M ESPE Elipar, Ivoclar bluephase, and Woodpecker I LED light cure), 120 precoated metal brackets (Gemini series, 3M Unitek) were cured. The shear bond strength was recorded using a universal testing machine. RESULT: The shear strength of the bracket in different light-curing systems was examined with ANOVA test. The mean shear strength of group A, group B, and group C were 16.03 ± 14.30 MPA, 16.86 ± 11.89 MPA, and 20.51 ± 19.40, respectively. The result of the analysis shows that there is a major difference in shear bond strength of these three different light-curing systems with F value = 3.94 and P value 0.04. CONCLUSION: We used three LED light-curing units with different intensities and manufacturing companies. The result showed that woodpecker I LED light had significantly highest mean SBS than the other two (Elipar LED curing light and 3M ESPE, Ivoclar bluephase).
RESUMO
AIM AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare radiographically, Pulpotec cement and Biodentine as direct pulp-capping agents in mature teeth, individually and in combination with photo-activated disinfection (PAD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the present study, 80 mature teeth with deep occlusal caries were selected for direct pulp-capping procedure and randomly assigned to one of the four groups [Pulpotec (I), Biodentine (II), Pulpotec + PAD (III), and Biodentine + PAD (IV)] allocating 20 teeth to each group. Direct pulp capping and cavity disinfection were performed based on the group allotted followed by permanent restoration with composite. The teeth were evaluated radiographically (densitometric analysis) at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months. The radiographic gray values obtained at follow-up periods for each group were subjected to two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement (p <0.0001) in the scores of all the groups at follow-ups as compared to the baseline. There was a significant difference between group I/group II with groups III and IV (p = 0.000) with group IV scoring highest at all follow-ups. However, the difference between groups I/II and groups III/IV was nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: Both, Biodentine and Pulpotec can be used for direct pulp capping of mature teeth. Furthermore, PAD prior to material application significantly improved the radiographical success of Biodentine and Pulpotec, with Biodentine showing better results than Pulpotec. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Biodentine and Pulpotec demonstrated comparable success as a pulp-capping agent and PAD application exhibited a synergistic effect when used in conjunction with these materials.