BACKGROUND: An optimum restoration for reconstructing endodontically treated teeth should provide excellent marginal adaptation, high fracture resistance as well as maximum tooth structure conservation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal adaptation and fatigue resistance of different coronal restorations in endodontically treated premolars.
METHODS: Thirty sound maxillary first premolars were endodontically treated and received MOD cavities. Teeth were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 10) according to the type of coronal restoration: Group R: polyethylene fibers (ribbond), fibers-reinforced composite (everX posterior) and final layer of nano-hybrid composite. Group O: indirect lithium disilicate overlay and Group C: fiber-post, resin composite restoration, and lithium disilicate crown. Marginal gap assessment was performed before and after thermocycling (5000 cycles) using stereomicroscope. Samples were subjected to stepwise-stress loading starting at 200 N, and increased by 100 N in each step until failure occurred. Statistical analysis was done by One-way ANOVA followed Tukey`s Post Hoc test for multiple comparison. Paired t test was used to compare the marginal adaptation before and after thermocycling. Survival probability was evaluated by Life table survival analysis. Failure mode analysis was performed with Chi-square test.
RESULTS: Marginal gap was significantly the lowest in group R (37.49 ± 5.05) and (42.68 ± 2.38), while being the highest in group C (59.78 ± 5.67) and (71.52 ± 5.18) in before and after thermocycling respectively (P < 0.0001). Fatigue resistance was the highest for group O (1310.8 ± 196.7), and the lowest for group R (905.4 ± 170.51) with a significant difference between groups (P < 0.0001). Crown group had the highest percentage (80%) of catastrophic failure, while, overlay group exhibited the lowest (20%).
CONCLUSIONS: Direct restoration without cuspal coverage using ribbon fibers with short FRC provided better marginal adaptation than indirect overlays and crowns, but fatigue resistance wasn\'t significantly improved. Adhesive ceramic overlays showed the best fatigue performance and the least catastrophic failure rate compared to both direct fiber-reinforced composite and indirect ceramic full coverage restorations.
CONCLUSIONS: Indirect adhesive overlays are a suitable, more conservative restorative option for endodontically treated teeth than full coverage restorations, especially when tooth structure is severely compromised.

The current restorative materials used for cervical lesions restoration still need to be improved. A low E-modulus restorative material Bondfill SB (group BF) is developed. This study was to evaluate marginal adaptation and nanoleakage expression at dentin bonding interface of BF before and after artificial aging cycling when used for class V cavity restoration in vitro. Cavities were prepared in human premolars and restored with either Bondfill SB or Z100 (group SZ). Quantitative data were analyzed by t-test (α = 0.05). Before cycling, there was no significant differences between groups for perfect margin and modes of failure. After cycling, SZ showed a higher (p = 0.002) perfect margin value (55.08 ± 15.20%) and less (p = 0.01) adhesive failure (35.35 ± 15.02%) to enamel than BF (25.15 ± 12.47% and 61.78 ± 15.41%, respectively). BF exhibited less (p = 0.01) adhesive failure (12.89 ± 5.58%) to dentin than SZ (44.17 ± 17.50%). BF showed more cohesive failures at both enamel (12.01 ± 3.65%) (p < 0.0001) and dentin (9.58 ± 3.14%) (p = 0.02) sides than SZ (0.77 ± 1.21% and 4.68 ± 1.39%, respectively). Transmission electron microscope (TEM) showed that hybrid layers in SZ and BF were around 0.5 μm thick. Before cycling, more silver deposits were found at dentin bonding interface in SZ. After cycling, the deterioration in SZ mostly occurred at the bottom and on the surface of the hybrid layer. While in BF, the deterioration occurred at the bottom of the hybrid layer and in Bondfill SB. BF showed a more reliable dentin bonding after artificial aging and might buffer the cervical stress concentration. Bondfill SB may be a new promising choice for long-term success of cervical lesions restoration. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 107B: 2050-2056, 2019.

Finger prosthesis often needs refabrication due to its discoloration following use. This article presents a novel, economical, and cost-effective technique to duplicate the patient׳s existing prosthesis to obtain a new wax replica, which is then clinically tried and processed to obtain new silicone finger prosthesis. This technique requires comparatively less clinical and laboratory steps as to fabricate an entirely new prosthesis. The newly fabricated silicone finger prosthesis has the fit and marginal adaptation of the patient׳s existing prosthesis but the esthetics is improved.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of composite type (bulk-fill/conventional) and placement (4-mm bulk/2-mm increments) on internal marginal adaptation of Class I preparations.
METHODS: Cylindrical, Class I, 4-mm×4-mm preparations were made on 50 recently extracted human molars and restored using either a bulk-fill (SureFil SDR Flow (SDR), Quixx (QX), SonicFill (SF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk (TEC)) or a conventional composite designed for 2-mm increments (Filtek Supreme Ultra (FSU)). Restorations were placed in 1 or 2 increments using the manufacturer\'s bonding agent and curing light (n=5). Teeth were sectioned occluso-gingivally and dye was placed on the internal margin and visually examined by 3 observers. Gap-free marginal lengths were analysed within three different regions of the sectioned tooth: enamel, mid-dentine, and pulpal floor.
RESULTS: Marginal integrity was unaffected by placement method. Bulk-placement demonstrated significantly fewer gap-free margins at the pulpal floor than in enamel, for all materials except SDR. Greater percentages of gap-free margins were found within the mid-dentine than at the pulpal floor for FSU. QX had more gap-free margins in enamel compared with the mid-dentine. Proportion of gap-free margins within enamel and mid-dentine was not significantly different for any incrementally placed product. Excluding FSU, gap-free margins within enamel were significantly greater than at the pulpal floor. Notably, significantly more gap-free margins were found within mid-dentine than at the pulpal floor for SF.
CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in gap-free margins were found between placement methods within a given product per location. Except for SDR, percentage of gap-free margins was significantly lower at the pulpal floor interface than at the enamel interface for bulk-fill.