No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Bulk-fill composites were introduced in dentistry to accelerate clinical procedures while providing adequate outcomes. Concerns regarding the use of bigger composite increments rely on the polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress, which may generate gaps on the adhesive interface and result in a reduced success rate. Objective: To evaluate the polymerization shrinkage stress of different bulk-fill resin composites and their elastic modulus. Materials and Methods: Fourteen specimens were made for each of the nine different resin composites (seven with 12 mm3 and seven with 24 mm3): Surefill SDR flow (SDR), X-tra Base (XB), Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable (FBF), Filtek Z350XT Flow (Z3F); Tetric Evo Ceram Bulk Fill (TBF), X-tra Fil (XF), Filtek Bulk Fill (FBP), Admira Xtra Fusion (ADM) and Filtek Z350 XT (Z3XT). Linear shrinkage stress was evaluated for 300 s with the aid of a linear shrinkage device adapted to a Universal Testing Machine. For each composite group, seven additional specimens (2x2x25 mm) were made and Young's modulus was evaluated with a 3-point bending device adapted in a Universal Testing Machine with 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed and 50 KgF loading cell. Results: For 12 mm3 specimens, three-way ANOVA showed that only SDR and TBF generated lower stress after 20 s. Considering 300 s, TBF, SDR, and XF generated the lowest stress, followed by ADM, FBP, XB, and FBF, which were similar to Z3XT. Z3F generated the highest stress values for all time points. Considering 24 mm3 specimens after 20 s, all bulk fill composites generated lower stress than Z3XT, except XB. After 300 s, SDR, FBP, and ADM generated the lowest stress, followed by TBF and XF. For elastic modulus, one-way ANOVA showed that FBF, SDR, Z3F, and ADM presented the lowest values, followed by XB and TBF. FBP, Z3XT, and XF presented the highest elastic modulus among the evaluated composites. Conclusions: Bulk-fill resin composites presented equal to lower shrinkage stress generation when compared to conventional composites, especially when bigger increments were evaluated. Bulk-fill composites showed a wide range of elastic modulus values, but usually similar to “regular” composites.

Objective:Tooth bleaching tends to increase enamel roughness and porosity, in addition to reducing surface microhardness. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of bleaching treatments using different hydrogen peroxide (HP) concentrations, with and without light activation on bovine enamel microhardness.Materials and Methods:The buccal surfaces of sixty bovine incisors were flattened and polished and the enamel specimens were divided into six groups: G1 : c0 ontrol, exposed to artificial saliva; G2: 35% HP applied in two sessions (45’ each); G3: 35% HP applied in two sessions (3 × 15’ each); G4: 35% HP applied in one session (3 × 7’30”) plus hybrid light (HL); G5: 25% HP applied in one session (3 × 7’30”) plus HL; and G6: 15% HP applied in one session (3 × 7’30”) plus HL. After the treatment, the enamel specimens were stored in artificial saliva. The surface microhardness (Knoop) was measured at the baseline, 24 h and 7 days after bleaching. The data was analyzed using the ANOVA test, followed by the Tukey–Krummer test (P < 0.05).Results:All bleaching procedures lead to a decrease in surface microhardness when compared with the control group after 24 h. The lowest change in surface microhardness was found in the specimens treated with 15% HP plus HL. However, 35% HP plus HL induced the highest decrease in surface microhardness. After 7 days of remineralization, the surface microhardness returned to normal levels for all bleached specimens.Conclusion:Therefore, it can be concluded that the bleaching protocols caused a slight enamel surface alteration. However, the remineralization process minimized these effects.