Elisa Gomes ALBUQUERQUE (a) Letícia de Souza LOPES (b) Stella Soares MARINS (a) Fernanda Signorelli CALAZANS (a) Luiz Augusto POUBEL (a) Roberta BARCELOS (a) Marcos de Oliveira BARCELEIRO (a)

SummaryBackgroundOrthodontic force application to the teeth is responsible for a series of biological responses in the bone and dentin, which lead to some alterations of the mineral density of the tissues. Our objective was determine, through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), the mineral density of the apical third of the roots of the upper central incisors and of the periapical bone portion surrounding these teeth, in patients submitted to orthodontic treated and untreated individuals.Material/Methods30 untreated individuals and 15 treated ones (treatment cessation at least 1 year before the study) underwent CBCT. Mineral density was assessed in the apical third of the root of the upper central incisors and in the alveolar bone in the periapical region of these teeth. In order to reduce CBCT-related mineral density variability, we standardized the cone-beam tomography device, the image-acquisition settings and the field of view positioning and size. Student’s t test was used for the analyses.Resultsbone mineral density (BMD) and root mineral density (RMD), in Hounsfield Units, were 674.84 and 1282.26 for the untreated group and 630.28 and 1370.29 for the treated group, respectively. The differences between the group means were statistically significant for RMD (p<0.05).Conclusionsuntreated individuals had a significant lower mean RMD in comparison with those submitted to orthodontic treatment.

Objective: the objective of this multi-center double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GbmH, Germany) when applied using different application strategies over a period of six months. Material and Methods: for this, 200 restorations were performed on non-carious cervical lesions using the adhesive Futurabond U according to four adhesive strategies (n = 50 per group): self-etch without previous conditioner (SEE); self-etch associated with selective enamel etching (SET); etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERDry) and; etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERWet). After hybridization, cavities were restored using Admira Fusion composite resin (Voco GmbH). After 6 months of clinical performance, these restorations were evaluated according to FDI criteria in the following items: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity and caries recurrence. Results: seven restorations were lost/fractured after six months of clinical evaluation (2 in the SEE group, 1 in the SET group, 1 in the ERDry group, and 3 in the ERWet group). The retention rates for six months (95% confidence interval) were 96% (86%-98%) for the SEE group, 98% (89%-99%) for the SET group, 98% (89%-99%) for the ERDry group and 94% (83%-97%) for the ERWet group, with no statistical difference identified between any pair of groups (p > 0.05). Twenty-four restorations presented small marginal adaptation defects at the six-months evaluation recall, and all of them were considered clinically acceptable. Conclusion: the clinical performance of the universal adhesive Futurabond U associated to Admira Fusion unidoses resin composite was found to be promise after 6-month of clinical evaluation when applied in non-carious cervical lesions and it was not depending on the bonding strategy employed.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the alteration of the optical properties of bulk Fill resin-based composites after 2 years of simulated toothbrushing. Three high-viscosity bulk fill resin composites and one conventional sculptable resin composite (control) were analyzed. Five specimens of each resin composite were prepared, and roughness, color, translucency and gloss were evaluated initially and after one and two years of simulated toothbrushing. The specimens were submitted to electric simulated toothbrushing (14600 strokes/100g) using a commercially available toothbrush with soft fibers and toothpaste slurry in a proportion of 1:2 by weight. The brushing scheme was of 40 cycles per day (2 cycles per second / 280 cycles in a week). The optical properties and the roughness data were analyzed by a multifactor analysis of variance (MANOVA) and a Tukey post hoc test. The baseline and final values of Ra and Sa were submitted to linear regression analyses, all of which were performed at a significance level of p=0.05. Gloss and roughness presented statistical differences between the resin-time interactions in all composite resins. The gloss (72.5%) and roughness (89.4%) worsened significantly after brushing, but the authors didn’t find statistically significant differences when evaluating translucency and color. Based in the results, it could be concluded that the simulated brushing degraded the brightness and roughness of the used high-viscosity bulk fill composites.

Clinical Relevance Non-carious cervical lesion restorations using a dual-cure universal adhesive in self-etch and etch-and-rinse mode showed satisfactory clinical performance after 18 months. SUMMARY Objectives: The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new dual-cure universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GmBH) when applied using different strategies over a period of 18 months. Methods and Materials: Fifty patients participated in this study. Two hundred non-carious cervical lesions were restored using the adhesive Futurabond U according to four adhesive strategies (n=50 per group): only self-etch (SEE), selective enamel etching + self-etch (SET), etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERDry), and etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERWet). After the adhesive application, cavities were restored using Admira Fusion composite resin. These restorations were evaluated according to FDI World Dental Federation criteria for the following characteristics: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and caries recurrence. Results: After 18 months, only four patients (12 months: one patient, n=4 restorations; and 18 months: three patients, n=12 restorations) were not evaluated. Fourteen restorations were lost after 18 months of clinical evaluation (four for SEE, three for SET, three for ERDry, and four for ERWet). The retention rates for 18 months (95% confidence interval) were 92% (81%–97%) for SEE, 94% (83%–97%) for SET, 94% (83%–97%) for ERDry, and 92% (81%–97%) for ERWet (p&gt;0.05). Thirty-eight restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 18-month recall (13 for SEE, 13 for SET, six for ERDry, and six for ERWet; p&gt;0.05). Fourteen restorations were detected as a minor marginal discoloration at the 18-month recall (six for SEE, six for SET, one for ERDry, and one for ERWet; p&gt;0.05). However, all were considered clinically acceptable. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or caries recurrence at the time. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the Futurabond U did not depend on the bonding strategy used, and it was considered reliable after 18 months of clinical evaluation, although more marginal discrepancy was observed in the self-etch group.