SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Class II restorations of a high-viscosity glass ionomer material, of a bulk-fill composite resin, and of a microhybrid composite resin. Methods and Materials: One hundred nine Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC; a conventional composite resin), Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF; a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite), and Equia Forte Fil (EF; a high-viscosity glass ionomer). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany) was used for both conventional and bulk-fill composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The data were analyzed using the chi-square, Fisher, and McNemar tests. Results: Eighty-four restorations were evaluated at two-year recalls. There were clinically acceptable changes in composite resin restorations (FBF and CSC). In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials in terms of all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the EF group and the FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity (p<0.05). Conclusions: The tested bulk-fill and conventional composite resins showed acceptable clinical performance in Class II cavities. However, if EF is to be used for Class II restoration, its use should be carefully considered.

Bulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving. Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II restorations. Methodology: In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests. Results: At the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0.05). Conclusion: Bulk-fill composite resins and conventional composite resins showed more successful clinical performance than highly viscous reinforced glass ionomers in Class II cavities.

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of resin infiltration and sealant type on enamel surface properties and Streptococcus mutans adhesion to artificial enamel lesions. Artificial enamel lesions were produced on the surfaces of 120 enamel specimens, which were divided into two groups: Group A and Group B (n=60 per group). Each group was further divided into four subgroups (n=15 per subgroup) according to sealant type: Group I-Demineralized enamel (control); Group II-Enamel Pro Varnish; Group III-ExciTE F; and Group IV-Icon. In Group A, hardness and surface roughness were evaluated; in Group B, bacterial adhesion was evaluated. Icon application resulted in significantly lower surface roughness and higher hardness than the other subgroups in Group A. In Group B, Enamel Pro Varnish resulted in lowest bacterial adhesion, followed by Icon. This study showed that resin infiltration of enamel lesions could arrest lesion progress.

Lf suppresses initial attachment of S. gordonii and S. gordonii coaggregates by iron sequestration. This may lead to subsequent inhibition of oral biofilm development.

The use of infiltrating resins is an efficient microinvasive treatment for interproximal caries in adolescents and young adults. • This method enables the treatment of lesions in a single session.• No significant adverse events or side effects were observed in patients 1 year following infiltration. AbstractObjective: The aim of this clinical trial was to assess the effect of resin infiltration on the progression of proximal caries lesions. Subjects and Methods: Forty-one patients, aged between 15 and 33 years, with 2 or more non-cavitated proximal caries lesions were included. In 41 of the adolescent and young adults, 45 pairs of proximal lesions with radiological extension into the inner and outer half of the enamel, or into the outer third of the dentin, were randomly allocated to the test groups (resin infiltration application + fluoridated toothpaste and flossing use) or to the control group (fluoridated toothpaste and flossing use). Standardized geometrically aligned digital bitewing radiographs were obtained using individual biting holders. The radiographic progression of the lesions was assessed after 1 year by digital-subtraction radiography. The McNemar test was used for statistical analysis. Results: In the test group 1/45 of the lesions (2.2%) and in the control group 9/45 of the lesions (20%) showed progression. The caries progression rate of the control group was significantly higher than that of the test group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Resin infiltration of proximal caries lesions is effective in reducing progression of the lesion.