The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of several finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composites and ormocer-based dental restorative materials. The materials included a nanofill composite (Supreme); a nanohybrid composite (Grandio); and an ormocer (organically modified ceramic) (Admira). Forty specimens of each material were prepared using a Mylar strip (polyester strip) and randomly divided into four finishing and polishing groups (n =10): (I) Diamond bur/Super-snap Rainbow Technique Kit(Al(2)O(2)-coated, graded abrasive discs); (II) Diamond bur/Astropol and Astrobrush system (silicone abrasive polishers and brush system); (III) Tungsten carbide bur/Super-snap Rainbow Technique Kit; and (IV) Tungsten carbide bur/Astropol and Astro-brush system. The average surface roughness (Ra) in micrometers was measured using a "Mahr Perthometer S4P" Surface Roughness Tester and the data were compared using ANOVA at P

The resin infiltration enhanced the microhardness of the WSLs regardless of whether or not a bleaching treatment was used. Using a bleaching treatment before resin infiltration resulted in color alteration, and it was also found to negatively influence the penetration of the infiltrant.

The clinical performance of fissure sealants placed after acid or Er,Cr:YSGG laser etching was similar.

Operative Dentistry, 2010, 35-5, 500-507 AR Yazici • M Baseren • J Gorucu Clinical RelevanceThe laser could be a promising alternative for minimally invasive occlusal resin composite cavity preparations, as its clinical performance was similar to bur-prepared composite restorations. SUMMARYThis study evaluated the two-year clinical performance of two minimally invasive cavity preparation techniques, bur and laser, in Class I occlusal resin composite restorations.Twenty-seven patients, each having at least one pair of occlusal caries, were enrolled in this study. For each patient, one of the cavities was prepared with a diamond bur, and the other was prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG laser. The cavities were restored with a nanofilled flowable resin composite, Grandio Flow, using an etch-andrinse adhesive, Solobond M. A total of 108 restorations were placed in molars by a single operator. The restorations were evaluated according to modified Cvar/Ryge criteria. The evaluations were performed at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after initial placement by two calibrated operators. The Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis.All the patients were available during all evaluated periods, resulting in a recall rate of 100%. The retention rates of the restorations at 24 *A Rüya Yazici, DDS, PhD, professor, Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey Meserret Baseren, DDS, PhD, professor, Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey Jale Gorucu, DDS, PhD, professor, Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey *Reprint request: 06100, Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey; e-mail: ruyay@hacettepe.edu.tr DOI: 10.2341/09-339-C Yazici, Baseren & Gorucu: Clinical Comparison of Bur-and Laser-prepared Resin Composite Restorations 501 months were 98.1% for bur and 100% for the laser-prepared group. After 24 months, 5.6% of the bur-prepared and 7.4% of the laser-prepared restorations were rated Bravo in marginal discoloration (p>0.05). Bur-prepared (9.3%) and laser-prepared (13%) restorations were rated Bravo in marginal adaptation (p>0.05). There were no significant differences between the two cavity preparation techniques regarding the evaluated parameters (p>0.05).Both cavity preparation techniques performed equally, with excellent outcomes after a 24-month period.

Etch-and-rinse adhesive systems can be a better choice for ensuring the long-term success of fissure sealants. SUMMARYAim: To compare the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 48 months.Materials and Methods: The authors enrolled 244 teeth, each with no restoration or sealant and no detectable caries, from 16 patients. The sealants were placed with Solobond M twostep etch-and-rinse adhesive or Futurabond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = completely retained, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. The