Influence of resin-coating agents on the roughness and color of composite resins.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Resin-coating agents can be used to fill microstructural defects within composite resin restorations, which might result in a smoother surface. Nevertheless, data about the color stability and surface roughness of coated restorations are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the surface roughness and color stability of restorations before and after application of different resin-coating agents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty specimens of composite resin (Filtek Z250) (diameter×height, 6×2 mm) were divided into 5 groups according to the surface treatments (n=8 per group): control (CTR), Fortify (FT), Lasting touch (LT), BisCover (BIS), and Fill Glaze (FG). The specimens were evaluated for surface roughness by using a profilometer with 3 readings for each specimen (separated by 300 µm) before immersion in a staining solution (coffee) and after 5 days immersed in coffee and for color stability (▵E) by using a spectrophotometer before being immersed in coffee (initial reading) and after 6 hours, 12 hours, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 days. RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures and the Tukey test showed that the CTR group showed the highest roughness values, similar to those of the FT and LT groups. The BIS and FG groups showed lower roughness than the other groups but similar results when compared with each other. All groups, except LT, showed increased roughness values after immersion in coffee solution, and the BIS group showed the lowest variation over time. Color alterations were found for all groups, with the CTR group showing the lowest ▵E values when compared with the other groups except for the BIS group. No correlation was found between surface roughness and degree of color change (P=.401). CONCLUSIONS: The BisCover surface sealant showed the lowest surface roughness and the best color stability. Surface sealants can be used to fill microcracks and microgaps but should not be used as a substitute for polishing.

Flexural strength of minimum thickness ceramic veneers manufactured with different techniques.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to assess the effect of monolithic and bilayer restorations considering heat-pressed and milled/CAD/CAM reinforced lithium disilicate ceramic veneers, on the flexural strength after cementation. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Thirty-five specimens were divided into five groups (n = 7), according to the restorative solution: 2-mm thickness composite resin (CR2); heat-pressed monolithic ceramic 0.6 mm (HPM), CAD/CAM monolithic ceramics 0.6 mm (CCM); heat-pressed monolithic ceramic 0.4 mm + 0.2 mm glass-ceramic (HPB); CAD/CAM monolithic ceramic 0.4 mm + 0.2 glass-ceramic (CCB). Specimens were cemented on composite resin bars and submitted to a three-point bending test on a Universal Testing Machine, until fracture. Fractured samples were analyzed under stereomicroscope and SEM. Flexural strength data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey test. RESULTS: The control group showed the highest flexural strength results (119.57 ± 19.49 MPa), with values similar to groups HPM (98 ± 25.62 MPa) and CCM (96.14 ± 20.60 MPa). Groups HPB and CCB showed lower values when compared with the other groups. Fracture started from the base on monolithic groups and from ceramic on bilayer groups. CONCLUSION: Both ceramic systems (CAD/CAM and heat-pressed) have similar fracture strength, although bilayer restorations present lower strength when compared with monolithic ceramics.

Improved mechanical performance of self-adhesive resin cement filled with hybrid nanofibers-embedded with niobium pentoxide.

OBJECTIVES: In this study hybrid nanofibers embedded with niobium pentoxide (Nb2O5) were synthesized, incorporated in self-adhesive resin cement, and their influence on physical-properties was evaluated. METHODS: Poly(D,L-lactide), PDLLA cotton-wool-like nanofibers with and without silica-based sol-gel precursors were formulated and spun into submicron fibers via solution blow spinning, a rapid fiber forming technology. The morphology, chemical composition and thermal properties of the spun fibers were characterized by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM), energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), respectively. Produced fibers were combined with a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U200, 3M ESPE) in four formulations: (1) U200 resin cement (control); (2) U200+1wt.% PDLLA fibers; (3) U200+1wt.% Nb2O5-filled PDLLA composite fibers and (4) U200+1wt.% Nb2O5/SiO2-filled PDLLA inorganic-organic hybrid fibers. Physical properties were assessed in flexure by 3-point bending (n=10), Knoop microhardness (n=5) and degree of conversion (n=3). Data were analyzed with One-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD (α=5%). RESULTS: Composite fibers formed of PDLLA-Nb2O5 exhibited an average diameter of ∼250nm, and hybrid PDLLA+Nb2O5/SiO2 fibers were slightly larger, ∼300nm in diameter. There were significant differences among formulations for hardness and flexural strength (p<0.05). Degree of conversion of resin cement was not affected for all groups, except for Group 4 (p<0.05). SIGNIFICANCE: Hybrid reinforcement nanofibers are promising as fillers for dental materials. The self-adhesive resin cement with PDLLA+Nb2O5 and PDLLA+Nb2O5/SiO2 presented superior mechanical performance than the control group.

Evaluation of compatibility between different types of adhesives and dual-cured resin cement.

PURPOSE: The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the bonding compatibility between different adhesives and a dual-cured resin cement, using a conventional tensile bond test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The adhesives used were: Prime & Bond (PB) (Dentsply) (PB), Scotchbond Multi Purpose (SB) (3M), and the activator Self Cure (SC) (Dentsply). The dual-curing resin cement used was Enforce (EF) (Dentsply). Six groups with five specimens in each were tested: G1: EF/PB/EF (light cured); G2: EF/SB/EF (light cured); G3: EF/PB+SC/EF (light cured); G4: EF/PB+SC/EF (only chemically cured); G5: EF/EF (light cured); G6: EF/EF (only chemically cured). The resin cement was applied in two stainless steel molds with a cone-shaped perforation measuring 4 mm in diameter and 1 mm in thickness, and the adhesive was applied between them. Ten minutes after specimens were cured, the tensile strength was measured in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. RESULTS: The mean values (MPa) +/- SD obtained in each experimental group were: G1: 1.4 +/- 0.2; G2: 1.3 +/- 0.2; G3: 1.2 +/- 0.4; G4: 0.8 +/- 0.2; G5: 1.2 +/- 0.1; G6: 0.7 +/- 0.1. The results were statistically evaluated using nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (p < or = 0.05). Statistically significant differences among groups were found only between G1 and G4, and G1 and G6. CONCLUSION: There was no incompatibility among the different adhesives used with dual-cured resin cement. The lowest tensile bond strength values occurred in the absence of photoactivation.