Objectives: To examine the impact of self-curing (SC) and light-curing (LC) mechanisms on the curing efficiency of dual-cured buildup restorative materials (DCB).Methods: The DCB materials tested were: Clearfil DC Core Automix (CD), Cosmecore DC (CM), LuxaCore DC (LX) and MultiCore DC Flow (MC). The SC material Clearfil Core New Bond (CN) and the LC material Clearfil Photo Core (CP) were used as controls. Specimens (Ø=4 mm, d=1 mm, n=4) of DCB materials prepared without light-exposure were tested after 10-, 20-, 30-and 60-minutes of storage in dark and dry conditions (37°C), whereas DCB specimens light-cured immediately after mixing (20 seconds, 850mW/cm 2 ) served as a reference. The amount of remaining C=C bonds (%RDB) was measured on the bottom specimen surfaces using ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. One-way ANOVA and multiple comparison tests were used to evaluate the statistically significant differences (α α=0.05).Results: Polymerization mode had a strong effect on the polymerization efficacy of the DCB materials (p<0.0001). The control materials (CN, CP) performed better than the DCB materials (p<0.0001), except for LX in the LC mode. LX and MC showed better SC conversion during the initial 20-minute period. After 60 minutes, the %RDB values of CM were still above 60%, whereas in CD and LX, they reached the level of LC specimens.Conclusions: The LC initiation mechanism of the DCB materials that were tested resulted in better C=C conversion when compared to their native SC mechanisms. The SC and LC control

No abstract

To overcome the shortcomings of the conventional composite restorative materials, ormocer materials have been introduced over the past few years. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal and internal adaptation of two ormocer restorative systems (Admira, Voco and Definite, Degussa) compared to a hybrid composite one (TPH Spectrum, Dentsply/ DeTrey), before and after load cycling in Class II restorations. Standardized Class II restorations with cervical margins on enamel were divided into three groups ( n=16). Teeth of each group were filled with one of the restoratives tested and its respective bonding agent. Each group was divided into two equal subgroups. The marginal and internal adaptation of the first subgroup was evaluated after 7-day water storage at room temperature and of the second after cyclic loading in a mastication simulator (1.2x10(6) cycles, 49 N, 1.6 Hz). The occlusal and cervical marginal evaluation was conducted by videomicroscope and ranked as "excellent" and "not excellent". One thin section (150 microm), in mesial-distal direction, of each restoration, was examined under metallographic microscope to determine the quality of internal adaptation. The occlusal and cervical adaptation of both ormocer restorative systems was similar and clearly worse compared with the hybrid composite restorative one before as well as after load cycling. Concerning internal adaptation, no gap-free ormocer restorations were detected, whereas all Spectrum restorations presented perfect adaptation. The bonding agents of the ormocers formed layers with unacceptable features (pores, fractures) whereas that of the hybrid composite achieved perfect bonding layer even after loading. The rheological characteristics of the bonding agents of the ormocer restorative systems are proposed to be responsible for their inferior marginal and internal quality in Class II restorations compared with the hybrid composite one.

The purpose of this study was to explore the level of agreement between the radiographic and the electronic apex locator (EAL) working length assessment methods, amongst teeth with different diagnoses. Working length measurements along with pulpal and periapical diagnoses data were collected from the Patient Registry Database of our Institution. The null hypothesis of this study was that pulp status does not affect the level of agreement between the two methods. The degree of agreement was assessed using the Bland-Altman method, followed by a Kruskal-Wallis test (a = 5%) that would allow the null hypothesis to be accepted. The EAL measurements agree in general with those provided by a 1.5 mm file placed coronal to the radiographic apex amid teeth with different pulpal diagnoses. Within the limitations of this study, we suggest that this setting (i.e. the distance) may be applied to all cases of endodontically treated teeth, despite the differences in pulpal diagnosis.