Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare dentin and enamel bond strengths obtained with dual-cure composite luting agents when used with dual-cure dental adhesives. METHODS:Human molars were ground flat to expose enamel (n=80) or dentin (n=80). Specimens in each substrate group were randomly assigned to eight treatment sub-groups, according to four adhesive-luting agent combinations and two test conditions (with or without thermocycling). Pre-polymerized composite resin posts (TPH Spectrum) were luted to either the enamel or dentin surfaces with one of the following adhesive-luting agent combinations: (1) Xeno IV Dual Cure (dual-cure self-etch adhesive) and Calibra (dual-cure luting agent); (2) Prime & Bond NT Dual Cure (dual-cure total-etch adhesive) and Calibra; (3) OptiBond All-in-One Dual Cure (dual-cure self-etch adhesive) and Nexus 2 Dual Syringe (dual-cure luting agent); (4) OptiBond Solo Plus Dual Cure (dual-cure total-etch adhesive) and Nexus 2 Dual Syringe. For each treatment sub-group, half the specimens (n=10) were tested after 24h storage in water at 37 degrees C, and the other half (n=10) were tested after thermocycling for 1800 cycles between water baths held at 5 and 55 degrees C, with a dwell time in each bath of 30s, and a transfer time of 10s. Bond strengths were measured in shear mode, and expressed in MPa. The fracture mode (adhesive, cohesive, mixed) was examined. Data were analyzed for statistical significance with a factorial ANOVA and post hoc tests. RESULTS:Mean enamel bond strengths ranged from 8.4MPa for non-thermocycled OptiBond All-in-One|Nexus 2 to 35.5MPa for non-thermocycled Prime & Bond NT|Calibra. Mean dentin bond strengths ranged from 14.5MPa for non-thermocycled OptiBond Solo Plus|Nexus 2 to 30.9MPa for thermocycled Xeno IV|Calibra. The fracture mode was predominantly adhesive for all groups. CONCLUSIONS:On enamel, the total-etch adhesives performed better than their self-etch counterparts, while in dentin, the opposite was found, i.e., the self-etch adhesives performed better than their total-etch counterparts. Thermocycling for 1800 cycles did not affect the SBS of the materials tested to dentin and enamel.

BACKGROUND:The strategies for accomplishing resin adhesion to dentin involve surface conditioning, priming and bonding. One-bottle adhesives combine the priming and bonding functions in a single solution. In this study, the authors compared the eight-year clinical performance of two one-bottle adhesives made by different manufacturers. METHODS:The authors placed a total of 99 Class V restorations using either a filled, ethanol-based adhesive (OptiBond Solo [OS], SDS Kerr, Orange, Calif.) or an unfilled, acetone-based adhesive (Prime & Bond 2.1 [PB] Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del.) and a hybrid resin-based composite in 33 subjects with noncarious cervical lesions. The authors did not bevel the enamel margins and used no mechanical retention. They evaluated the restorations at baseline and for as long as eight years after placement using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. They analyzed differences between groups using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS:The authors examined 56 restorations after eight years and found retention rates of 69 percent for OS and 59 percent for PB. These rates did not differ statistically (P = .449) and were not significantly affected by subject or lesion characteristics. The authors noted marginal discoloration on 55 percent of the retained OS restorations and on 31 percent of the retained PB restorations, but they detected no secondary caries around any restoration. They noted poor anatomical form and poor marginal adaptation in 15 percent and 40 percent of the retained OS restorations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The performance of both adhesives was good during this eight-year clinical trial. The filled, ethanol-based adhesive OS demonstrated slightly better bond durability than did the unfilled, acetone-based adhesive PB, but the difference between the two materials was not statistically significant. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Despite a high incidence of marginal discoloration, the one-bottle adhesives evaluated in this study provided good clinical retention of Class V restorations without mechanical retention. When the materials are used properly, restorations are retained at an acceptable rate through at least eight years of clinical service.

UNLABELLED:The apparent contact dimension (ACD), a determinant of dental esthetics, has been purported to exhibit an esthetic relationship termed the "50:40:30" rule, implying that in an esthetic smile, the ACD between the central incisors, central and lateral incisors, and lateral incisor and canine would be 50, 40, and 30% of the height of a central incisor, respectively. This study assessed the existence of this proportion using casts of orthodontically treated (N = 40) and nontreated (N = 27) subjects deemed to possess excellent occlusion. Covariates studied included tooth size, tooth shape, tip, and torque. The average ACD proportions in this study, relative to the height of an ipsilateral central incisor, were found to be 49, 38, and 27% between the central incisors, central and lateral incisors, and the lateral incisor and canine, respectively. The ACD exhibited a positive correlation (p < 0.05) with the height of the clinical crown and a negative correlation (p < 0.05) with the width/height ratios of the corresponding teeth. No statistically significant correlations were evident between the ACD with the shape of the clinical crown, tip, and torque. However, the tip and torque did exhibit a statistically significant (p < 0.05) correlation with the height of the clinical crown. This study is the first to validate the existence and proportions of the ACD. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:This study validates the existence of the ACD and quantifies the relationship of the ACD with tooth size, tooth shape, mesiodistal crown angulation (tip), and labiolingual crown inclination (torque) among subjects deemed to possess excellent occlusion and alignment. This quantifiable "ideal" and its correlation with the other determinants of dental esthetics may be used in conjunction with various evidence-based paradigms in the esthetic appraisal of the maxillary anterior teeth.

UNLABELLED:Ceramic dental restorative materials offer an esthetic alternative to dental amalgam or gold. There is uncertainty relative to the longevity of ceramic inlay restorations. Recently published long-term research studies reveal general clinical performance trends. These trends are discussed while presenting a ceramic inlay case. Successful clinical use of ceramic inlay materials is absolutely dependent on the creation of an uncompromised adhesive tooth/ceramic interface. Ceramic inlay restorations perform well in terms of long-term retention, color match, and anatomic contour stability. These restorations all experience limited margin deterioration that does not predispose to marginal discoloration or secondary caries. Patients rarely suffer from postoperative sensitivity secondary to ceramic inlay placement. Ceramic inlays fail predominantly as a result of crack propagation from material flaws leading to bulk fracture. Some superficial ceramic defects may be repaired with composite resin. Internal material flaws are minimized by industrial production of indirect pressable glass-ceramic materials or ceramic blocks designed for computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM). External surface flaws are limited by careful polishing techniques. Strategic placement of ceramic inlays in teeth that are not subject to heavy occlusal loading will result in more predictable long-term performance. Preparation design to prevent flexure of ceramic inlay materials is essential. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Use of ceramic inlays to restore defects in posterior teeth requires careful attention to detail. Placement of ceramic inlay materials in high-stress areas may result in less predictable long-term performance. Ceramic inlays are advantageous for restoring moderately sized defects when optimal control of restoration contours and esthetics is desired.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the dentin shear bond strength (SBS) of a new two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system (MPa Direct) using self- and light-cured composites. METHODS:The dentin of 160 bovine teeth was ground to 600 grit. Self- (Bisfil 2B) or light-cured (Filtek Supreme Plus) composite was bonded to dentin using MPa Direct, Adper Single Bond Plus, One-Step Plus, OptiBond Solo Plus, or Prime & Bond NT. For the light-cured composite, MPa Direct was used both with and without the HEMA/glutaraldehyde desensitizer (G5) supplied in the kit. For the self-cured composite, OptiBond Solo Plus and Prime & Bond NT were used with and without their respective self-cure activators. Those two adhesives and MPa Direct also were used with the self-cured composite after removal of the oxygen-inhibited layer from the adhesive. Following storage in water for 24 hours, shear bond strengths were determined using a universal testing machine. The data were subjected to factorial ANOVA and Tukey's test. RESULTS:With the light-cured composite, the mean SBS of MPa Direct was 41.1 MPa. Use of G5 did not significantly affect mean SBS (35.7 MPa). Mean SBS of MPa Direct when used with the self-cured composite was significantly lower (16.6 MPa). However, removal of the oxygen-inhibited layer returned the bond strength (38.9 MPa) to the level obtained using light-cured composite. Both OptiBond Solo Plus and Prime & Bond NT had significantly lower bond strengths when used with the self-cured composite than with the light-cured composite, regardless of whether their self-cure activators were used. Removal of the oxygen-inhibited layer improved the bond strengths of these two adhesives, but the improvement was less than that observed for MPa Direct. Bond strengths of One-Step Plus and Adper Single Bond Plus were not affected by the type of composite resin used.

The composite resin restoration of permanent incisors with crown fractures is a conservative, timely, and economical treatment option. Several variables can affect the longevity of this type of restoration including: the overall prognosis of the injured tooth, whether the pulp is exposed, the extent of the crown fracture, the restoration's size, the patient's age and occlusion, and future reinjury of the restored tooth. Contemporary adhesives and composites allow clinicians to restore fractured permanent incisors with good predictability, restoring both the esthetics and function of the affected tooth. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the current state of the restoration of permanent incisors with crown fractures using composite resins.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To compare the clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive with that of a popular etch-and-rinse adhesive in Class I posterior composite restorations. METHODS:60 Class I resin composite restorations (30 per group) were placed in matched pairs using either the self-etch adhesive Xeno III and the microhybrid resin composite Esthet-X or the etch-and-rinse adhesive OptiBond Solo Plus and Point 4 microhybrid resin composite. Subjects were interviewed via telephone 1 week after restoration placement to assess early post-operative sensitivity. In addition, the restorations were evaluated clinically for post-operative sensitivity, marginal quality, wear, and other characteristics immediately after placement and at 6, 12, 18, and 36 months from baseline. RESULTS:During the first week after placement, subjects reported that 23% of restorations in each group had post-operative sensitivity. Sensitivity decreased greatly with time, and differences between the two groups were never statistically significant. Marginal integrity and discoloration were similar for each group at each recall evaluation. Wear of both resin composites increased over time, but mean wear remained at less than 100 microm for each resin composite at 3 years.

BACKGROUND:One approach to controlling dental unit waterline (DUWL) contamination by microorganisms is the addition of chemical cleaners to the treatment water. Yet, there is concern that these cleaners might affect the bonding of resin-based composites to enamel and dentin. The authors evaluated the influence of DUWL cleaners on composite-to-dentin bond strengths. METHODS:The authors tested the strength of resin-based composite bonded to dentin in specimens treated with distilled water (control) or one of four cleaners. They tested a total-etch adhesive, a self-etching primer/adhesive and an experimental self-etching primer/ adhesive. The authors stored the specimens for 24 hours at 37 C and tested them to determine their bond strengths. RESULTS:The mean shear bond strengths (SBSs) varied according to the cleaner and adhesive used, ranging from 14.7 to 21.9 megapascals. However, the authors found no statistically significant differences and/or interactions between mean SBSs of specimens treated with the various DUWL cleaners and adhesives (P > or = .05). CONCLUSIONS:The tested DUWL cleaners did not significantly influence composite-to-dentin bond strengths for the total-etch adhesive and self-etching primer/adhesives used in this study. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS. The conclusions imply that bonding of resin-based composites to dentin is not affected by the cleaners tested when they are used to treat DUWL contamination.