Sibel A. Antonson

Comparison of different finishing/polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare four finishing/polishing systems (F/P) on surface roughness and gloss of different resin composites. METHODS A total of 40 disc samples (15 mm × 3 mm) were prepared from a nanofill - Filtek Supreme Plus (FS) and a micro-hybrid resin composite - Esthet-X (EX). Following 24h storage in 37°C water, the top surfaces of each sample were roughened using 120-grit sandpaper. Baseline measurements of surface roughness (Ra, μm) and gloss were recorded. Each composite group was divided into four F/P disk groups: Astropol[AP], Enhance/PoGo[EP], Sof-Lex[SL], and an experimental disk system, EXL-695[EXL] (n=5). The same operator finished/polished all samples. One sample from each group was evaluated under SEM. Another blinded-operator conducted postoperative measurements. Results were analysed by two-way ANOVA, two interactive MANOVA and Tukeys t-test (p<0.05). RESULTS In surface roughness, the baseline of two composites differed significantly from each other whereas postoperatively there was no significance. The Sof-Lex F/P system provided the smoothest surface although there were no statistical significance differences between F/P systems (p>0.01). In gloss, FS composite with the EXL-695 system provided a significantly higher gloss (p<0.01). EX treated by Soflex revealed the least gloss (p<0.05). SEM images revealed comparable results for F/P systems but EX surfaces included more air pockets. CONCLUSIONS Four different finishing/polishing systems provided comparable surface smoothness for both composites, whereas EXL with FS provided significantly higher gloss. SEM evaluations revealed that the EX surface contained more air pockets but F/P systems were compatible.

The Effect of Ceramic Restoration Shade and Thickness on the Polymerization of Light and Dual-cure Resin Cements

OBJECTIVES Inadequately polymerized resin cements may negatively affect the clinical performance of cemented all-ceramic restorations. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of ceramic thickness and shade on the microhardness of various light-cured (LC) and dual-cured (DC) resin cements. The amount of light transmission through the restoration was also evaluated to correlate the results. METHODS Three different brands of resin cements (Appeal/Ivoclar; Calibra/Dentsply; Nexus 2/Kerr) were used in LC and DC forms to prepare disk-shaped samples (0.5-mm thickness × 5-mm diameter) (n=15). Study group samples were light-cured for 40 seconds (Flashlite 1401/Discus Dental) through four shades (ETC1, ETC2, ETC3, ETC4) and four thicknesses (1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm) of all-ceramic ingot discs (IPS Empress Esthetic/Ivoclar). Control samples were directly cured without the presence of ceramic. The light transmission through various shades and thicknesses of ceramics was measured using a hand-held radiometer (Demetron, Kerr). Vickers microhardness measurements were performed (Micromet/Buehler) at 24 hours following dark storage in 37°C water. Correlation between ceramic shade, thickness, and light intensity readings (mW/cm2) with respect to microhardness was statistically evaluated using analysis of variance (p=0.05). RESULTS Ceramic thickness of 3 mm and/or above significantly decreased the microhardness values in all LC and DC groups (p<0.0001). Ceramic shade had a significant effect only on Calibra in both LC and DC groups (p<0.0001). Microhardness values of LC groups were significantly lower than DC groups (p<0.0001). Control groups had significantly higher hardness values in all cement groups (p<0.0001). There was a significant correlation between the amount of light transmitted and hardness (p=0.000). CONCLUSION The ceramic thickness has a more intense effect on polymerization compared to the ceramic shade. Overlying ceramic thickness of 3 mm and above was found to adversely affect the polymerization of LC and DC resin cements and therefore a 3-mm thickness was considered the critical threshold.

Thermal Safety of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG Lasers in Hard Tissue Removal

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the thermal safety of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers with conventional multi-use and single-use diamond burs. BACKGROUND DATA Thermal effect of tooth preparation is mostly evaluated through the pulp chamber because it is difficult to measure the temperature of the preparation surface. A new in vitro method was introduced to simultaneously evaluate the heat increase of the preparation surface together with the pulp chamber. METHODS Six laser and bur instrument groups were used to make standardized preparations on buccal surfaces of 60 intact third molars. The preparations removed an equal volume of hard tissue from each tooth (4 mm occluso-gingival x 8 mm mesial-distal x 1.6 mm bucco-lingual). The teeth also included tunnel preparations from the opposite (lingual) surface, exposing the pulpal axial wall (axial dentin wall in contact with the pulp chamber from the preparation surface site). An infrared thermal camera was positioned to capture the preparation surface in direct vision, while the pulpal axial wall was indirectly reflected to the thermal camera via a minimal-energy-loss mirror. Data from both surfaces were analyzed statistically using Nested Least Squares Analysis. RESULTS The laser groups generated significantly lower heat compared to bur groups on the preparation surfaces. In contrast, both lasers generated greater pulpal heat increase, and the Er:YAG laser group showed significance (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Lasers produced less heat on the preparation surface but more on the pulpal axial wall. However the temperature rise was less than the 5.5 degrees C threshold margin of safety.

Should my new curing light be an LED

The new generation LED curing light units have significantly improved curing performance compared to first generation lights, and even some second generation LED curing light units. This study compared the curing performance of 10 new generation LED light curing units (FLASH-lite 1401, LE Demetron 1, Coltolux, Ultra-Lume 5, Mini LED, bluephase, Elipar FreeLight 2, Radii, Smartlite IQ and Allegro) for depth of cure against a high-powered halogen curing light unit (Optilux 501). Depth of cure measurements were utilized per the ANSI/ADA No 27 standard to detect differences between the lights at three time intervals (10, 20 and 40 seconds). A total of 660 samples were prepared (n=10/group). A full factorial ANOVA and Tukeys HSD test showed FLASH-lite 1401 performed significantly better than the other lights at 10- and 20-second time intervals (p<0.01). This study also demonstrated that an exposure time of 20 seconds or longer assures a better depth of cure, 40 seconds being the optimal polymerization time for all of the curing light units.

Comparison of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser with a chemical vapour deposition bur and conventional techniques for cavity preparation: a microleakage study

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser using chemical vapour deposition (CVD) bur cavity preparation with conventional preparation methods including a diamond bur and a carbide bur on the microleakage with two different adhesive systems. A total of 40 extracted human premolars were randomly assigned to four experimental groups according to the cavity preparation technique: group I diamond bur (Diatech); group II carbide bur (Diatech); group III Er,Cr:YSGG laser (Biolase Millennium II); and group IV CVD bur (CVDentUS). Using the different preparation techniques, Class V standardized preparations were performed on the buccal and lingual surfaces with gingival margins on the dentin and occlusal margins on the enamel. Each preparation group was randomly assigned to two subgroups (five teeth, ten preparations) according to the type of adhesive: an etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond), and a single-step self-etch adhesive (AdheSE One). All preparations were restored with a nanohybrid composite resin in a single increment. Following thermocycling (×500; 5–55°C), the teeth were immersed in basic fuchsin and sectioned in the orovestibular direction. Dye penetration was evaluated under a light microscope by two blinded examiners. Data were statistically analysed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the preparation techniques with either of the two adhesive systems (p>0.05). Comparing the enamel and dentin leakage scores within each group, no statistically significant differences were found (p>0.05). The Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation did not differ from preparation with CVD, diamond or carbide bur in terms of microleakage with the different adhesive systems.