RESUMO
This study aimed to compare the aesthetic properties of posterior composite restorations made with a multishade (MS) or single-shade (SS) material. For that, 23 extracted human molars were used. The shade determination was performed, and the occlusal anatomy was registered by a custom-made stamp. Then, class I preparations were made, and each tooth was restored twice, using two different composites of MS/opacity layering material (Admira Fusion-Voco) and an SS/opacity bulk-fill composite (Admira Fusion X-tra-Voco). After finishing the first restoration with the MS material, a standardized picture was taken, and the restoration was removed. Then, the preparation was restored again with the other composite, obtaining a new picture. The pictures were randomly analyzed by 10 calibrated evaluators regarding color match using the FDI criteria. The evaluators were blinded to the restorative material used. Data were analyzed using an unpaired t-test and Wilcoxon test. The significance level adopted in the study was 5%. As a result, there were nonsignificant differences between the composites evaluated for color match, as well nonsignificant differences were obtained related to which restorative technique produced the best aesthetic results. Only for darker shades (A4, B4, and C4), most of the evaluators considered the restorations made with the MS material more aesthetic than with the SS, while for the other shades, nonsignificant differences were observed. Therefore, the choice of the SS and the MS/opacity composites does not influence the aesthetic outcome of posterior restorations for the lighter shades. However, the use of bulk fill material for dark shades is less favorable than the MS layering ones.
RESUMO
AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of silane (Si) application and different adhesive systems on the bond strength of composite resin repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred composite truncated cone-shaped specimens were prepared and submitted to 5,000 thermal cycles to simulate existing restorations. Their top surfaces were airborne particle abraded with aluminum oxide, etched with phosphoric acid, and divided into two groups (n = 50) with or without Si application. Each group was divided into five subgroups (n = 10) according to the adhesive system applied: Solobond Plus Primer and Adhesive (SPA)-two-bottle, Solobond Plus adhesive (SA), Admira Bond (A)-one bottle, Futurabond DC (FDC)-self-etch, and Futurabond M (FM)-self-etch. New composite resin was applied over the bonded area. A control group was prepared to evaluate the cohesive strength of the composite resin. Specimens were submitted to tensile stress. Data were analyzed with two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the Tukey and Dunnett tests. RESULTS: Si application reduced the bond strength of all adhesives (p = 0.001). Groups SA and SPA showed higher bond strengths in relation to other groups (p = 0.01). Groups FDC + Si, FM, FM + Si, and A + Si showed smaller mean bond strength values than that of the control group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Previous Si application reduced bond strength values. The two-bottle adhesive showed better results than one-bottle or self-etching systems for composite resin repairs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The kind of adhesive system applied for composite resin repairs has a great influence on bond strength values. The use of Si in this situation is not recommended.
