Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of Class II resin composite restorations.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to compare in-vitro the proximal contact tightness (PCT) of Class II resin composite restorations (RCR) placed with different established and new placement techniques. METHODS: 105 ivorine lower left first molars with standardized MO cavities were randomly divided into seven groups (n = 15) as follows: SRing: sectional matrix and separation ring (Garrison Dental); CRing: circumferential matrix (1101-c, KerrHawe SA) with separation ring; CWedge: circumferential matrix with a wedge only; COptra: circumferential matrix and OptraContact (Vivadent); CCerana: circumferential matrix and a Cerana insert (Nordiska Dental); CElliot: circumferential matrix and Elliot separator (PFINGST & Co) and Walser: Walser matrix O-type (Dr Walser Dental GmbH). In all the groups, the matrix band was secured using a wooden wedge except for the Walser group, following manufacturer's recommendations. A Tofflemire retainer (Kerr Corporation) was used to apply the circumferential matrix band whenever it was used. All the prepared teeth were restored with resin composite (Premise, Kerr) mounted in a manikin head to simulate the clinical environment. PCT was measured using the Tooth Pressure Meter (University of Technology, Delft). The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Compared to the control group (SRing) (6.64 +/- 1.06N), all other systems resulted in significantly lower PCT values (p < 0.001). Within the circumferential matrix groups, CRing (4.01 +/- 0.53N) and CElliot (4.29 +/- 1.08N) showed significantly tighter contacts compared to the CWedge (0.37 +/- 0.22N), COptra (0.91 +/- 0.49N), CCerana (2.99 +/- 1.98N) and Walser (1.34 +/- 0.55N) (p < 0.05) group. Between CWedge and COptra, no significant difference was found (p = 0.57). CONCLUSION: The use of separation rings with sectional matrices provides superior contacts when placing Class II RCRs.

The personal human oral microbiome obscures the effects of treatment on periodontal disease.

Periodontitis is a progressive disease of the periodontium with a complex, polymicrobial etiology. Recent Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) studies of the microbial diversity associated with periodontitis have revealed strong, community-level differences in bacterial assemblages associated with healthy or diseased periodontal sites. In this study, we used NGS approaches to characterize changes in periodontal pocket bacterial diversity after standard periodontal treatment. Despite consistent changes in the abundance of certain taxa in individuals whose condition improved with treatment, post-treatment samples retained the highest similarity to pre-treatment samples from the same individual. Deeper phylogenetic analysis of periodontal pathogen-containing genera Prevotella and Fusobacterium found both unexpected diversity and differential treatment response among species. Our results highlight how understanding interpersonal variability among microbiomes is necessary for determining how polymicrobial diseases respond to treatment and disturbance.

Bacterial flora of dental periradicular lesions analyzed by the 454-pyrosequencing technology.

INTRODUCTION: Symptomatic teeth with periradicular lesions of infectious origin remain a significant challenge in dentistry, and the reason for the acute perturbation is incompletely understood. The present study used pyrosequencing of bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes to characterize the microbiota of periradicular lesions. METHODS: Thirteen periradicular lesions from 11 symptomatic and 2 asymptomatic teeth were sampled during apical surgery. Samples were subjected to DNA extraction and 16S rRNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification. PCR amplicons were then sequenced by using the Roche 454 GS FLX platform. Data were analyzed with the Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology (QIIME) software package. RESULTS: Seven of the 13 periradicular lesions (53.8%) yielded PCR amplicons, which generated 35,731 high-quality DNA sequences belonging to 10 bacterial phyla and 73 bacterial genera. All 7 lesions were associated with symptoms. The phyla with most bacterial taxa were Proteobacteria (proportion of total bacterial taxa, 33.3%), Firmicutes (30.9%), Actinobacteria (12.2%), and Bacteroidetes (11.4%). The most abundant genera were Fusobacterium (average of total sequences, 21.0%), Streptococcus (8.0%), Prevotella (7.5%), Corynebacterium (7.2%), Porphyromonas (6.0%). and Actinomyces (5.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the microbiota of symptomatic periapical lesions is predominated by anaerobic bacteria but also contains substantial levels of streptococci, actinomyces, and bacteria not previously identified in the oral cavity. The etiopathogenic role and therapeutic implication of periradicular bacteria need to be determined.

Efficacy of microtensile versus microshear bond testing for evaluation of bond strength of dental adhesive systems to enamel.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of the microtensile bond test (microTBS) and the microshear bond test (microSBS) in ranking four dental adhesives according to bond strength to enamel and identify the modes of failure involved. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four caries-free human molars were randomly assigned to one of two bond strength testing methods: 20 teeth were used for microTBS test and 24 teeth for microSBS test. Flat enamel surfaces were created by wet grinding. Four adhesive systems were applied to the ground enamel surfaces; a two-step self-etch (Clearfil SE Bond, SEB), two all-in-one self-etch (Adper Prompt L-Pop, APL; Hybrid Bond, HB) and a two-step etch-and-rinse (Adper Single Bond, ASB). Resin composite (Z100) was applied over the adhesive. The microTBS and microSBS were determined after 24h of storage in water at 37 degrees C. The mode of failure was determined by light microscope and SEM. Data was analyzed with ANOVA, Tukey's and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: microTBS test ranked the adhesives as follows: SEB=ASB=APL>HB, while microSBS test ranked the adhesives as follows: ASB>SEB=APL>HB. The highest percentage failure mode with microTBS testing was cohesive in enamel or at the DEJ: SEB (95%), APL (65%) and ASB (65%). As for HB, adhesive failure (95%) was the common finding. The predominant failure mode in case of the microSBS was adhesive (APL 50%, SEB 58.3%, ASB 75% and HB 91.7%). SIGNIFICANCE: Ranking appears to be test-dependant and microSBS test appears to be more accurate in differentiating among the stronger adhesives.