UNASSIGNED: This systematic review was designed to compare the clinical effectiveness of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC) restorations to direct composite resin (CR) restorations in single- or multisurface cavities in primary teeth.
UNASSIGNED: Restorative procedures are typically used to treat caries in primary teeth. Due to their improved preservation of the natural tooth structure and their adhesion to the remaining tooth structure, CR and GIC have drawn attention as the preferred restorative materials. In the literature, over the past 20 years, the term HVGIC has developed. Compared to C-GICs, HVGICs appear to have a higher survival rate. However, isolated studies provide contradictory findings regarding the durability of restorations in primary teeth.
UNASSIGNED: Major electronic databases were thoroughly searched to find publications from the years 2000 to 2021. Studies included were randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials on children aged 3-13 years, in which restoration of primary teeth using HVGIC and CR was performed.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review includes four studies [three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one nonrandomized controlled trial]. No statistically significant difference between these materials was seen in any of the included studies.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review of findings supports the assertion that both HVGIC and CR restorations deliver satisfactory outcomes in terms of clinical efficacy and overall survivability. It was found that, for both materials, class I restorations had statistically higher survival rates than class II restorations. Long-term studies are essential to evaluate the clinical efficacy of both restorations.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review outlines the application of HVGIC and CR as restorative materials for pediatric dentists to use in their everyday dental practices.
UNASSIGNED: Krishnakumar K, Kalaskar R, Kalaskar A, et al. Clinical Effectiveness of High-viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement and Composite Resin as a Restorative Material in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(2):221-228.

BACKGROUND: Restorative composite resins have clinical prime importance in modern dental practice, but numerous factors influence their prognosis in the oral environment. Their interaction with oral care products, like mouthwashes, is one such factor. This study aimed to evaluate the quantifiable effects of different mouthwashes on the surface properties of the composite resin restorative material.
METHODS: The method involved formulating 90 samples of nanohybrid composite resins (Medicept Dental India Private Limited, Mumbai, India). The samples were treated with 1% alcohol, without alcohol, and with a saline solution (control). Surface roughness (Ra values) and microhardness had been checked before and after an exposure period of 24 hours. Data were thus tabulated, and from that, average values of surface roughness and microhardness were derived. This data was analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, V. 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a t-test were used to compare the means of the variables. The level of significance was fixed at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: The surface roughness value was significantly highest in the ethanol-containing mouthwash-treated samples after 24 hours of exposure (p < 0.05). The microhardness was statistically lower in these samples (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: These research data give quantitative information, however, about the mass effect of mouthwashes on the composite resin restorative material. The presented changes, which were illustrated by the values of surface roughness and microhardness, are drawing attention to the fact that a cautious approach must be taken in the recommendations for oral care in the provision of intensive treatments with restorative composite resins.

This study aims to evaluate the repair micro-shear bond strength of the CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic block treated using four different surface treatments and composite resins of different viscosities. For the current study, 96 samples with dimensions of 14 × 12 × 2 mm were obtained from a CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic block (Cerasmart) with a low-speed precision cutting saw under water cooling. The relevant samples were randomly divided into four groups according to the surface treatment processes: grinding with diamond bur, aluminum oxide airborne-particle abrasion, long-pulse laser, and short-pulse laser. Following silane application, universal adhesive was applied to all surface-treated samples and cured with an LED for 10 s. The samples prepared for the repair procedure were divided into two subgroups (microhybrid composite and injectable composite) according to the viscosity of the repair material to be used (n = 12). After the repair procedure, care was taken to keep the samples in distilled water in an incubator at 37 °C for 24 h. The repair micro-shear bond strength values (μSBSs) of CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic-composite resin complexes were tested. In addition, randomly selected samples from each group were examined with a scanning electron microscope to evaluate the surface topography after both surface treatments and the micro-shear bond strength test. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test. It was determined that the surface treatment preferred in the repair protocol significantly affected the μSBS value (p < 0.001). While the highest μSBS value was obtained with the short-pulse laser airradiation group, the lowest μSBS values were found in samples with long pulse laser irradiation. However, samples grinded with a bur and airborne-particle abrasion showed similar μSBS values (p > 0.05). The preferred composite viscosity in the repair procedure has a significant effect on the μSBS value (p < 0.001). However, the interaction between the surface treatment and the viscosity of the repair composite does not affect the μSBS values in a statistically significant way (p = 0.193). It may be recommended to clinicians to repair CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic restoration surfaces with injectable composites or after treatment with short-pulse lasers.

This study evaluates the mechanical properties and formulation of dental restoration material comprised of cellulose acetate (CA) from water hyacinth and chitosan (C) from white shrimp shells. The research phases included extraction, formulation, functional group testing, antibacterial, toxicity, water absorption and solubility, compressive, shear, tensile, hardness, microleakage, thermal expansion, and shrinkage. The experimental data were analyzed using probit regression, one-way ANOVA, and Kruskal-Wallis test. The data showed that CA and C had microxyl and amine groups, could inhibit S. mutans, and were non-toxic. Composite resins were divided into nine formulations with different concentrations: F1 (1 % CA + 3 % C), F2 (1 % CA + 5 % C), F3 (1 % CA + 7 % C), F4 (3 % CA + 3 % C), F5 (3 % CA + 5 % C), F6 (3 % CA + 7 % C), F7 (5 % CA + 3 % C), F8 (5 % CA + 5 % C), and F9 (5 % CA + 7 % C). The F9 has mechanical strength close to the control group, with 113.33 μg/mm3 absorption, 80 μg/mm3 solubility, 32.67 Mpa compressive strength, 17.18 Mpa tensile strength, and no shrinkage. It shows that F9 has potential as an eco-friendly dental filling material. The present study completed the development of a formulation for a restoration material by combining water hyacinth fiber and shrimp skin chitosan. The outcomes of a comparative analysis of the mechanical properties of synthetic composite resins and water hyacinth fiber composites containing shrimp skin chitosan revealed that the F9 formulation (CA 5 % + C 7 %) exhibited the following fiber: absorption, compressive strength, tensile strength, hardness, and thermal expansion.

Aesthetics has been an important aspect of dentistry along with functionality for decades but its significance is at an all-time high. Hence among techniques that contribute toward this goal, strip crown has shown convincing results. However, its acceptance did not reach its potential, especially among general dentists which could be attributed to its technique-sensitive nature. This case report sheds light on the practicality and reliability of this technique along with various modifications made by authors while striving to improve the quality of treatment provided by the clinician.

UNASSIGNED: This study assessed the effect of repeated preheating of three types of composite resins and a giomer on their color stability.
UNASSIGNED: In this in vitro study, 128 composite resin and giomer specimens with a 10-mm diameter and a 2-mm height were evaluated in eight groups (n=16) of Heliomolar microfilled, Brilliant Enamel microhybrid, and Tetric N-Ceram nanohybrid composite resins, and Beautifil II giomer used at room temperature and also after preheating of the tube in a water bath at 55‒60 °C for 40 times. After preparing the specimens, their color parameters were measured by a spectrophotometer. The specimens were immersed in a tea solution for 3 hours/day for 40 days and underwent spectrophotometric color assessment again. The color change (∆E) was calculated and analyzed by two-way ANOVA (α=0.05).
UNASSIGNED: The effects of composite resin type (P<0.001) and preheating (P<0.001) and their interaction effect (P<0.001) were significant on ∆E. Immersion in a tea solution caused a significantly greater color change in giomer (P<0.05). The ∆E of the microfilled composite resin was significantly higher than that of nanohybrid (P=0.003) and microhybrid composite resin (P=0.004).
UNASSIGNED: Repeated preheating of giomer, microhybrid, and nanohybrid composite resin specimens to 55‒60 °C for 40 times adversely affected their color stability in the tea solution. The color change was significantly greater for giomer.

UNASSIGNED: The study aims to investigate the effects of laser-activated irrigation on infiltration and microleakage of a dual-curing resin cement applied as a root canal sealer.
UNASSIGNED: Thirty-eight extracted upper molars were attributed to four experimental groups. Roots were mechanically enlarged and disinfected (NaOCl). Control samples (n = 11) were irrigated with conventional needles and three different lasers were used to activate the irrigant in the other groups (n = 9): 2.94 µm Er:YAG laser, 9,300 µm CO2 laser and 808 nm diode laser with a modified black coated laser tip. Final irrigation was performed in each group with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and sodium chloride (NaCl) activated with lasers and in the control without activation.Dentin tubules were then labeled with a red fluorophore (Rhodamine B) and the root canals were sealed with a dual-curing resin cement (Paracore). The cement fixed the dye on the sealed and infiltrated dentin parts. To remove the Rhodamine not fixed by the cement, roots were then sectioned horizontally and immersed in hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). The empty dentin tubules spaces were then labeled with a green fluorophore (Fluorescein) allowing the visualization of infiltration and microleakage by confocal microscopy.
UNASSIGNED: Percentages of infiltration were significantly higher in the middle root third of the control and Er:YAG laser-activated samples compared to CO2 or diode laser groups. Microleakage was present in all experimental groups but significantly less after CO2 laser activation.
UNASSIGNED: Laser-activated irrigation impacted resin cement infiltration and microleakage dependent on the applied wavelength. Er:YAG laser activation led to higher values of infiltration and microleakage compared to CO2 and diode lasers.

The development of high-filled 3D printing resin necessitates a bonding protocol for dental indirect restorations to achieve optimal bond strength after cementation. This study evaluates shear bond strengths of high-filler 3D printed materials for permanent restorations with various surface treatments. Rodin Sculpture 1.0 (50% lithium disilicate fillers) and 2.0 Ceramic Nanohybrid (>60% zirconia and lithium disilicate fillers) were tested, with Aelite All-Purpose Body composite resin as control. Samples were prepared, post-cured, and sandblasted with alumina (25 µm). Surface roughness was analyzed using an optical profilometer. Two bonding protocols were compared. First, groups were treated with lithium disilicate silane (Porcelain Primer) or zirconia primer (Z-Prime Plus) or left untreated without a bonding agent. Beam-shaped resin cement (DuoLink Universal) specimens were bonded and stored in a 37 °C water bath. Second, additional sets of materials were coated with a bonding agent (All-Bond Universal), either followed by silane application or left untreated. These sets were then similarly stored alongside resin cement specimens. Shear bond tests were performed after 24 h. SEM images were taken after debonding. One-Way ANOVA and post hoc Duncan were performed for the statistical analysis. Rodin 1.0 exhibited increased adhesive failure with silane or zirconia primer coating, but significantly improved bond strengths with bonding agent application. Rodin 2.0 showed consistent bond strengths regardless of bonding agent application, but cohesive failure rates increased with bonding agent and filler coating. In all groups, except for Rodin 1.0 without bonding agent, silane coating increased cohesive failure rate. In conclusion, optimal shear bond strength for high-filler 3D printing materials can be achieved with silane coating and bonding agent application.

UNASSIGNED: To compare infiltration, sealing and microleakage in root dentin with a self-conditioning adhesive system combined with dual curing resin (resin-based cement) to a conventional epoxy-resin-based sealer using confocal microscopy imaging.
UNASSIGNED: 26 roots were enlarged and disinfected. Dentin tubules of 24 teeth were labelled with a red fluorophore (Rhodamine B) (two samples served as controls). Root canal samples were sealed in group AH (n = 11) with a conventional sealer (AH Plus Root Canal Sealer, Dentsply DeTrey) and in group RC (n = 11) with a resin-based cement (Parabond combined with Paracore, Coltène). Roots were then sectioned horizontally and immersed in H2O2 to remove the Rhodamine B not fixed by the sealers. The empty dentin spaces were labeled with a green fluorophore (Fluorescein) enabling the evaluation of infiltration as well as microleakage by confocal microscopy. Two additional samples were fractured in vertical direction for observation under SEM.
UNASSIGNED: Group RC presented significantly more infiltration in the middle third than in the middle and apical thirds of group AH. Microleakage was significantly higher in group AH than in group RC. SEM images revealed more dentin plugs and a homogenous resin layer in group RC in contrast to group AH.
UNASSIGNED: The resin-based cement revealed promising outcomes compared to a traditional epoxy resin based sealer.
Infiltration and microleakage in infiltrated and sealed root dentin samples are higher in middle than apical root thirds. Root dentin infiltration and sealing with a self-conditioning adhesive system and a dual-curing resin cement revealed less microleakage than with an epoxy-resin-based sealer.

Tooth decay, also known as caries, is a significant medical problem that harms teeth. Treatment is based on the removal of the carious material and then filling the cavity left in the tooth, most commonly with amalgam or composite resin. The consequences of filling failure include repeating the filling or performing another treatment such as a root canal or extraction. Dental amalgam contains mercury, and there is a global effort to reduce its use. However, no consensus has been reached regarding whether amalgam or composite resin materials are more durable, and which is the best restorative material, when using randomized clinical trials. To determine which material is superior, we performed a retrospective cohort study using a large database where the members of 58 dental clinics with 440 dental units were treated. The number of failures of the amalgam compared to composite resin restorations between 2014 and 2021 were compared. Our data included information from over 650,000 patients. Between 2014-2021, 260,905 patients were treated. In total, 19,692 out of the first 113,281 amalgam restorations failed (17.49%), whereas significantly fewer composite restorations failed (11.98%) with 65,943 out of 555,671. This study indicates that composite is superior to amalgam and therefore it is reasonable to cease using mercury-containing amalgam.