Adherence of oral bacteria to the surface of dental restorative materials is considered an important step in the development of secondary caries and periodontal disease. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the adherence of different restorative materials to Streptococcus mutans strain (CCUG35176) in order to ascertain possible differences. The materials tested ranged across different classes including: flowable composites (Gradia Direct LoFlo; Filtek Supreme XT Flowable), anterior composites (Gradia Direct Anterior), universal composites (Filtek Supreme XT), packable composites (Filtek Silorane; Filtek P60), glass-ionomers (Fuji IX Gp Extra; Equia) and a control reference material (Thermanox plastic coverlips). Bacterial suspension was deposited onto each material and the adhesion was evaluated trough the colony forming units (CFUs) determination. Packable silorane-based composite was found to be less adhesive than posterior packable composite P60, flowable composites and glass ionomers. The fluoride of glass ionomers did not prevent the attachment of S. mutans; furthermore, after roughness analysis and SEM investigations, the hypothesis that the difference in bacterial adhesion can be determined by the particular surface chemistry of the material itself as well as by different electrostatic forces between bacteria and restorative surfaces must be given serious consideration.

Objective. During orthodontic therapy, accuracy in bonding procedures makes it easier to correct tooth alignment by decreasing the need for midcourse corrections by changing bracket positions. Indirect bonding allows the transfer of the appliance components from model casts to patient’s teeth potentially meaning shorter appointments for bracket bonding and rebonding and best comfort during chairside practice. At the same time, there has been a steady increase in requests for invisible lingual orthodontic treatment. Clinical Considerations. Accordingly, the aim of the present report is to illustrate the workflow to realize a complete digital indirect bonding for lingual brackets (2D, Forestadent). The procedure starts with intraoral digital scans, digital 3D model, and virtual bracket positioning, ending with the realization of a CAD-CAM prototyped transfer tray. A 3D intraoral scanner (True Definition, 3M) is used to create digital scans and digital models. A virtual bracket positioning is performed using software (NemoCast, Dentaurum), and a prototyped transfer tray is created by a CAD-CAM device. 2D lingual brackets were positioned inside the tray, so the appliance was bonded to the dental surface using light curing adhesive resin. Conclusions. During orthodontic treatment, CAD/CAM technology could help clinicians. Computer-constructed transfer trays can reduce clinician error and improve the everyday workflow in the office.