Effect of Different Post-Curing Methods on the Degree of Conversion of 3D-Printed Resin for Models in Dentistry.

The aim was to investigate the effects of different post-curing units on the chemical properties (degree of conversion) of 3D-printed resins for producing models in dentistry. The goal is to determine whether less-expensive post-curing units can be a viable alternative to the manufacturer's recommended units. Forty-five samples were fabricated with an LCD printer (Phrozen Sonic Mini, Phrozen 3D, Hsinchu City, Taiwan) using MSLA Dental Modeling Resin (Apply Lab Work, Torrance, CA, USA). These samples were divided randomly into four different groups for post-curing using four distinct curing units: Phrozen Cure V2 (Phrozen 3D, Hsinchu City, Taiwan), a commercial acrylic nail UV LED curing unit (SUNUV, Shenzhen, China), a homemade curing unit created from a readily available UV LED light produced (Shenzhen, China), and the Triad® 2000™ tungsten halogen light source (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA, USA). The degree of conversion was measured with FTIR spectroscopy using a Nicolet 6700 FTIR Spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Phrozen Cure V2 had the highest overall mean degree of conversion (69.6% with a 45 min curing time). The Triad® 2000 VLC Curing Unit had the lowest mean degree of conversion value at the 15 min interval (66.2%) and the lowest mean degree of conversion at the 45 min interval with the homemade curing unit (68.2%). The type of light-curing unit did not yield statistically significant differences in the degree of conversion values. There was a statistically significant difference in the degree of conversion values between the 15 min and 45 min curing intervals. When comparing individual light-curing units, there was a statistically significant difference in the degree of conversion for the post-curing units between the 15 min and 45 min curing time (p = 0.029).

Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Composite resin and amalgam restorations are indicated for the restoration of posterior teeth. With increased esthetic demands, long-term clinical studies are required to evaluate the restorative success and reasons for failure of these materials. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the survival and reasons for failure of directly placed 2-surface composite resin restorations and directly placed 2-surface amalgam restorations on premolars placed by Canadian dental students. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using The University of Manitoba's dental management software and paper charts, all 2-surface composite resin and 2-surface amalgam restorations placed on premolars between January 1, 2002, and May 30, 2014, were included. Short-term failure (within 2 years), long-term failure, and reasons for failure were collected. A Kaplan-Meier survival estimate with an associated P value comparing composite resin to amalgam restoration curves was performed using SPSS statistical software. RESULTS: Over 12 years, 1695 composite resin and 1125 amalgam 2-surface premolar restorations were placed. Of these restorations, 134 composite resins (7.9%) and 66 amalgams (5.9%) failed. Short-term failures (2 years or less) consisted of 57 composite resin (4%) and 23 amalgam (2.3%) restorations. Long-term failures (greater than 2 years) consisted of 77 composite resin (4.5%) and 43 amalgam (3.8%) restorations. After 12 years of service, the survival probability of composite resin restorations was 86% and that of amalgam restorations 91.5%. The differences in composite resin and amalgam survival curves were also found to be statistically significant (P=.009 for Log-rank test). The main reasons for failure were recurrent caries and fracture of the tooth being restored. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, both composite resin and amalgam restorations had acceptable success rates and similar failure modes. Recurrent caries was still the most common reason for failure.

Influence of irrigating solution on postoperative pain following single-visit endodontic treatment: randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 irrigation solutions in terms of postoperative pain after single-visit treatment of chronic apical periodontitis with pulp necrosis. METHODS: A total of 126 patients requiring treatment of apical periodontitis and pulp necrosis were randomly assigned to 2 groups according to the solution used for irrigation: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) or 2% chlorhexidine gel (CLX) (63 patients in each group). To assess postoperative pain, a questionnaire and pain intensity scale were administered at 24, 48 and 72 hours and 7 days after the procedure. The χ2 test was used to compare the intensity of pain with the 2 irrigation solutions. RESULTS: No patients reported severe pain at any stage. Moderate pain was reported by 3% of patients (2/63 in each group) after 24 hours and by no patients beyond 24 hours, regardless of the irrigant used. Mild pain was more frequent but diminished rapidly (reported by 19% [12/63] of patients in the NaOCl group and 16% [10/63] in the CLX group at 24 hours, by 10% [6/63] in the NaOCl group and 11% [7/63] in the CLX group at 48 hours, by 3% [2/63] in both groups at 72 hours and by 2% [1/63] in both groups at 7 days). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative pain between the 2 groups at any time point (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of postoperative pain after single-visit endodontic treatment of chronic apical periodontitis with pulp necrosis was uniformly low, regardless of the irrigant used.