Surface Roughness of Nanofill and Nanohybrid Composite Resin and Ormocer-based Tooth-colored Restorative Materials after Several Finishing and Polishing Procedures Clinical evaluation of nanofill and nanohybrid composite in Class I restorations: a 12-month randomized trial. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth. A 12-month clinical evaluation of composite resins in class III restorations. The effects of finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites. Misfit and microleakage of implant-supported crown copings obtained by laser sintering and casting techniques, luted with glass-ionomer, resin cements and acrylic/urethane-based agents. The influence of one-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations. Effect of Bleaching Gels on Surface Roughness of Nanofilled Composite Resins The effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of composite resin materials. 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. Inhibition of demineralization adjacent to tooth-colored restorations in primary teeth after 2 in vitro challenges. Comparison of two-step versus four-step composite finishing/polishing disc systems: evaluation of a new two-step composite polishing disc system. Clinical performance of novel resin composites in posterior teeth: 18-month results. The effect of a new-generation flowable composite resin on microleakage in Class V composite restorations as an intermediate layer
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 material s. The material s included a nanofill composite ( Supreme ) ; a nanohybrid composite ( Gr and io ) ; and an ormocer ( organically modified ceramic ) ( Admira ) . Forty specimens of each material were prepared using a Mylar strip ( polyester strip ) and r and omly divided into four finishing and polishing groups ( n 1/4 10 ) : ( I ) Diamondbur/Super-snapRainbowTechniqueKit(Al2O2-coated , grade d 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 0.05 . The results of this study indicated that the Mylar strip produced the smoothest surface on all material s and among the finishing-polishing methods the first and the third methods performed significantly smoother surfaces than the second and the fourth methods for the three restoratives . Ormocer ( Admira ) performed the lowest variability in initial surface roughness among the tested material s . This study has shown that Super-snap abrasive discs produced a smoother surface than the Astropol and Astrobrush silicone polishers for composite and ormocer-based restorative material s , but the results would be valid clinical ly for readily accessible and flat surfaces i.e. , not for all areas in the mouth . Therefore silicone polishers are necessary for posterior areas and for concave and convex surfaces This r and omized trial evaluated the 12-month clinical performance of nanofill , a nanohybrid , and a microhybrid composite in restorations in occlusal cavities of posterior teeth . This study utilized 41 patients , each of whom had three molars affected by primary caries or the need to replace restorations . All restorations were performed in accordance with the manufacturer 's recommendations and evaluated in accordance with U.S. Public Health Service-modified criteria . Based on the results of the present study , the material investigated demonstrated acceptable clinical performance after 12 months of clinical service . Long-term re-evaluations are necessary for a more detailed analysis of these composites PURPOSE To evaluate and compare the 2-year clinical performance of an ormocer , a nanohybrid , and a nanofill resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite in restorations of small occlusal cavities made in posterior teeth . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirty-five patients , each with 4 occlusal restorations under occlusion , were enrolled in this study . A total of 140 restorations  was placed , 25 % for each material : an ormocer-based composite , Admira ; a nanohybrid resin composite , Tetric EvoCeram ; a nanofill resin composite , Filtek Supreme ; and a microhybrid resin composite , Tetric Ceram . Two operators placed all restorations according to the manufacturers ' instructions . One week after placement , the restorations were finished/polished and patients were advised to return for follow-up at 6 months , 1 year , and 2 years . All patients attended the 2-year visit where the clinical performance of all restorations was evaluated . Two independent examiners made all evaluations according to the USPHS modified Ryge criteria immediately after placement of restorations and at subsequent recall visits . The changes in the USPHS parameters during the 2-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test . Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test . The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 . RESULTS All material s showed only minor changes , and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after 2 years . Only one  ormocer and one  microhybrid composite restoration had failed after 2 years . No failure was detected in nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorations . Regarding the clinical performance , there were no statistically significant differences among the material s used ( p > 0.05 ) . CONCLUSION After 2 years , the ormocer , nanohybrid , and nanofill composites showed acceptable clinical performance similar to that of the microhybrid resin composite PURPOSE This paired-tooth r and omized controlled prospect i ve clinical study compared the clinical performance of three composite resins in Class III cavities after 12 months . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Three material s were evaluated : a microfilled composite resin ( Durafill VS ) , a hybrid composite resin ( Filtek Z250 ) , and a nanofilled composite resin ( Filtek Supreme ) .  Thirty-eight patients having at least three Class III restorations were enrolled in this study . A total of 114 restorations were placed by two calibrated operators according to the manufacturers ' instructions . The adhesive system ( Clearfil SE Bond ) was either applied according to manufacturer 's instructions ( CSE non-etch ) or enamel margins were first etched with phosphoric acid ( CSE etch ) . One week later , the restorations were finished and polished . Two other independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline according to the USPHS criteria and USPHS modified criteria for the items color match and surface appearance . The restoration location was taken into consideration during the analysis of each item . A nonparametric analysis of variance ( Friedman test ) and the Wilcoxon test were used for statistical analysis ( alpha = 0.05 ) . RESULTS The restoration location did not influence the evaluated items . Filtek Z250 showed the best color match at baseline , and after 6 and 12 months . No significant difference in the item surface appearance was detected at baseline ; however , after 6 and 12 months , Filtek Z250 showed the worst performance on this item . No significant difference was found between CSE non-etch and CSE etch groups . CONCLUSION The hybrid composite resin showed an excellent immediate and 12-month color match , which was superior to the nanofilled and microfilled composites tested . On the other h and , the nanofilled and microfilled composites showed the best surface appearance after 12 months . Additional etching of the enamel cavity margins did not influence the clinical performance of the adhesive Clearfil SE Bond OBJECTIVES The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of different finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites . METHODS Two  nanohybrid  ( Gr and io , Aelite Aesthetic Enamel ) , two nanofill ( Filtek Supreme XT Dentin and Translucent ) , and a microhybrid ( Filtek Z250 ) composites were used . Two hundred and eighty disc-shaped specimens were cured under a mylar strip . Seven specimens of each resin composite were r and omly assigned to one of the seven polishing systems . A profilometer was used for assessing surface roughness . ΔE was calculated with a colorimeter at baseline and 48 h after storage in a coffee solution . The results were analysed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey 's HSD test ( α=0.05 ) . Regression analysis was used to examine the correlation between surface roughness and color stability ( α=0.01 ) . RESULTS There was no significant difference in R(a ) values between mylar strips and Sof-Lex polishing discs ( p>0.05 ) . The highest ΔE and R(a ) values were obtained from Gr and io ( p<0.05 ) , and Aelite Aesthetic Enamel had the lowest ΔE values ( p<0.05 ) . The Enhance system showed the lowest color differences among all the finishing systems . The highest ΔE values were found in the composite resin groups under mylar strips and finished with diamond burs ( p<0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS While the Sof-Lex discs provided the lowest surface roughness , the Enhance Polishing system provided the most stain-resistant groups . Gr and io presented the highest surface roughness and staining susceptibility after storage in coffee solution . Aelite Aesthetic Enamel , which did not include TEGDMA in its composition , showed the least discoloration . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The composites with smaller filler size did not necessarily show low surface roughness and discoloration . Staining of composite resins was dependent on monomer structure , as well as surface irregularities OBJECTIVES This study evaluated the marginal misfit and microleakage of cement-retained implant-supported crown copings . METHODS Single crown structures were constructed with : ( 1 ) laser-sintered Co-Cr ( LS ) ; ( 2 ) vacuum-cast Co-Cr ( CC ) and ( 3 ) vacuum-cast Ni-Cr-Ti ( CN ) . Sample s of each alloy group were r and omly luted in st and ard fashion onto machined titanium abutments using : ( 1 ) GC Fuji PLUS ( FP ) ; ( 2 ) Clearfil Esthetic Cement ( CEC ) ; ( 3 ) RelyX Unicem 2 Automix ( RXU ) and ( 4 ) DentoTemp ( DT ) ( n=15 each ) . After 60 days of water ageing , vertical discrepancy was SEM-measured and cement microleakage was scored using a digital microscope . Misfit data were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons tests . Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn 's tests were run for microleakage analysis ( α=0.05 ) . RESULTS Regardless of the cement type , LS sample s exhibited the best fit , whilst CC and CN performed equally well . Despite the framework alloy and manufacturing technique , FP and DT provide comparably better fit and greater microleakage scores than did CEC and RXU , which showed no differences . CONCLUSIONS DMLS of Co-Cr may be a reliable alternative to the casting of base metal alloys to obtain well-fitted implant-supported crowns , although all the groups tested were within the clinical ly acceptable range of vertical discrepancy . No strong correlations were found between misfit and microleakage . Notwithst and ing the framework alloy , definitive resin-modified glass-ionomer ( FP ) and temporary acrylic/urethane-based ( DT ) cements demonstrated comparably better marginal fit and greater microleakage scores than did 10-methacryloxydecyl-dihydrogen phosphate-based ( CEC ) and self-adhesive ( RXU ) dual-cure resin agents OBJECTIVES This in vitro study evaluated the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites that contain nanoparticles and a microhybrid composite finished and polished with two different one-step polishing systems and a conventional multi-step polishing system . METHODS AND MATERIAL S The material s evaluated were Filtek Supreme XT , Gr and io , Ceram X , Aelite Aesthetic Enamel , Tetric EvoCeram and Filtek Z250 .  A total of 240 specimens ( 10-mm in diameter , 2 mm thick ) were fabricated for both tests ( n=120 each test ) in a plexiglass mold covered with a Mylar strip . After polymerization , five specimens per group received no polishing treatment and served as the control for both tests . For each composite group ( n=15 ) , the specimens were r and omly divided into three polishing systems : PoGo , OptraPol and Sof-Lex . All polishing systems were applied according to the manufacturers ' instructions after being ground wet with 1200 grid silicon carbide paper . The surface roughness values were determined using a profilometer . The microhardness measurements were performed using a digital microhardness tester ( load 500 g ; dwell time 15 seconds ) . The data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA test at a significance level of 0.05 for both tests . Multiple comparison was performed with the Duncan Multiple Range test . RESULTS The smoothest surfaces were achieved under Mylar strips in all composite groups ( p<0.05 ) . There were no statistically significant differences between polishing systems in the Filtek Supreme XT , Ceram X , Aelite Aesthetic Enamel and Gr and io groups for surface roughness ( p>0.05 ) . In the Tetric EvoCeram group , Sof-Lex exhibited the highest roughness values . No statistically significant differences were evaluated between polishing systems ( p>0.05 ) ; whereas , the surfaces under Mylar Strip showed statistically significant lower values than the polished surfaces in terms of microhardness ( p<0.05 ) . CONCLUSION One-step polishing systems may be successfully used for polishing nanocomposites The aim of this article was to report the results of an 18-month longitudinal r and omized clinical trial that evaluated the clinical performance of microhybrid , packable and nanofilled resin composite restorations placed in Class I cavities of molar teeth . Three Class I resin composite restorations were placed in each of 35 patients . Each patient received one microhybrid ( ' Point 4 ' ; Kerr , Orange , CA , USA ) , one packable ( ' Packable Premise ' ; Kerr , Orange , CA , USA ) and one nanofilled ( ' Nanofilled Premise ' ; Kerr , Orange , CA , USA ) resin composite restoration .  Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline ( 2 weeks after placement ) , and after 6 , 12 and 18 months after placement using modified Ryge criteria . No patients were lost from the study . At the final appointment ( after 18 months ) , 95.4 % , 93.7 % and 96.2 % respectively of the microhybrid ( ' Point 4 ' ) , packable ( ' Packable Premise ' and nanofilled ( ' Nanofilled Premise ' ) resin composite restorations received Alfa ratings . Regardless of the type of restorative material , no significant changes were observed in the modified Ryge criteria at the baseline and 18-month recalls ( P < or=0.05 ) . Three restorations ( one from each group ) exhibited post-operative sensitivity at the baseline and 6-month appointment . After 18 months , one packable resin composite restoration  failed because of secondary caries , while secondary caries was not detected on any of the other restorations . The clinical performance of microhybrid ( ' Point 4 ' ) , packable ( ' Packable Premise ' ) and nanofilled ( ' Nanofilled Premise ' ) resin composite restorations was acceptable after 18 months . Further studies with longer follow-up periods are recommended to investigate the long-term survival of these restorations Objectives : The aim of this study was to investigate the superficial texture of composite restorations after different bleaching protocol s. Methods : Filtek Supreme ( S ) , Filtek Z350 ( F ) , and Gr and io ( G ) were compared to Opallis ( O ) and Filtek Z250 ( Z ) ( control microhybrid composites ) and to bovine enamel using three different bleaching agents : 35 % hydrogen peroxide Whiteness HP ( WHP ) , 35 % Whiteness HP MAXX ( WMAXX ) and 16 % carbamide peroxide Whiteness St and ard ( WS ) .  Six specimens from each composite were treated using each bleaching agent , according to the manufacturers ’ instructions . Three r and om sites were measured for superficial roughness ( Hommel Tester T 1000 ) weekly for each sample . Data were analyzed for each bleaching system using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests at 5 % significance level . Results : WHP treatment significantly altered the Filtek Supreme composite over time . When WMAXX was used , Gr and io displayed the most significant alterations in surface roughness throughout the evaluation period , which was not observed for the other nanocomposites . Using WS , Filtek Z250 presented significant surface alterations over time , which was not seen in the nanofilled material s. Conclusions : Surface roughness alteration was material and time-dependent . The bleaching gels affected nanofilled and microhybrid composite resins . Enamel was the surface less affected by bleaching AIMS The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of various finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of six different composite resin material s ( Artemis Enamel , TPH Spectrum , Filtek A-110 , Filtek Supreme Enamel , Solitaire 2 , and Filtek P-60 ) as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the surface sealant application ( BisCover ) on the surface roughness after finishing and polishing procedures of tested composites . METHODS AND MATERIAL S Specimens ( n=168 ) measuring 5 mm in diameter x 2 mm in thickness were fabricated in a plexiglass well covered with a Mylar strip using six composite resins . A control group of seven specimens of each material received no polishing after being cured under the Mylar strip . Twenty-one specimens for each composite were r and omly divided among three finishing and polishing groups ( n=7 ) . Each group was polished using a different system : Carbide bur/Sof-Lex disc , Carbide bur/Enhance disc with polishing paste , and Carbide bur/Edenta composite finishing kit . The average surface roughness ( Ra , microm ) of the control and treated specimens were measured with the Mitutoyo Surftest-402 Surface Roughness tester . After a surface sealant ( BisCover ) was applied to all treated specimens , according to manufacturer 's instructions , the average roughness ( Ra ) was measured again . Results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance ( ANOVA ) and the post-hoc Scheffe 's test at a p<0.05 significance level . RESULTS Significant differences were found for the surface roughness ( p<0.05 ) with interaction among composite resins and the finishing systems used ( p<0.05 ) . Enhance/Biscover finishing and polishing procedure surface was not significantly different from the Mylar strip surface groups ( p>0.05 ) . The Mylar strip group was not significantly different from the Sof-Lex/BisCover and Edenta/BisCover groups . The ranking of mean Ra values by material s was as follows : Filtek Supreme Enamel < Filtek A110 < TPH Spectrum < Artemis < Filtek P-60 < Solitaire 2 . The ranking of mean Ra values by polishing systems was as follows : Enhance/BisCover < Mylar Strip < Sof-Lex/BisCover < Edenta/BisCover < Sof-Lex < Enhance < Edenta . CONCLUSION Smoother surfaces were recorded for the Enhance/BisCover and the Mylar strip-formed surface groups . The composite finishing kit Edenta significantly increased the Ra for all tested composites ( p<0.05 ) . But after finishing with Edenta , the use of a surface sealant ( BisCover ) significantly improved the surface smoothness of all tested composites ( p<0.05 ) . Use of BisCover surface sealant on anterior and posterior resin composite restorations after finishing and polishing procedures is recommended OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite in restorations in occlusal cavities of posterior teeth in a r and omised trial over 30 months . METHODS Forty-one adolescents participated in the study . The teeth were restored with a nanofill ( Filtek Z350 , 3 M ESPE ) , a nanohybrid ( Esthet-X , Dentsply ) ; Filtek Z250 ( 3 M ESPE ) was used as a control . After 30 months , the restorations were evaluated in accordance with the US Public Health Service ( USPHS ) modified criteria . The McNemar and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis , at a level of significance of 5 % . RESULTS There were significant differences in the roughness of Filtek Z250 ( p=0.008 ) and Filtek Z350 ( p<0.001 ) when the four time periods ( baseline , 6 months , 12 months and 30 months ) were compared . There were significant differences in the marginal adaptation of Filtek Z250 ( p=0.001 ) , Filtek Z350 ( p<0.001 ) and Esthet-X ( p=0.011 ) . Except for one of each composite restoration , all the modifications ranged from Alpha to Bravo . There were significant differences in the surface roughness ( p=0.005 ) when the three composites were compared after 30 months . CONCLUSIONS The material s investigated showed acceptable clinical performance after 30 months . Long-term re-evaluations are necessary for a more detailed analysis of these composites ( CEP : # 1252 ) PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface finish and gloss of five direct resin composites polished with six polishing systems . MATERIAL S AND METHODS One hundred and fifty disk-shaped composite specimens ( D=10.0 mm , 2-mm-thick , N=30 per material ) were made . One side of each specimen was finished with a 16-fluted carbide finishing bur and then polished . Five specimens of each resin composite were r and omly assigned to one of the six polishing systems . The surface roughness and gloss were measured with a surface profilometer and a glossmeter . The results were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey 's t-test ( p < or= 0.05 ) . RESULTS There was no significant interaction between the composite and the polishing systems for surface roughness ( p=0.059 ) . The order of surface roughness ranked according to composite was : Durafill < Esthet-X < Supreme < Z250 < Z100 ; and the ranking for the polishing system was : Pogo < Sof-Lex < Diacomp/Enamelize < Diacomp < ComposiPro brush < Jiffy . There was interaction of gloss values between the composites and the polishing systems ( p < 0.001 ) . The highest gloss value was recorded for Supreme + Pogo ; the lowest was recorded for Z100 + Jiffy . Pogo showed the highest gloss values for all composites . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The nanofill ( Supreme ) and minifill ( Esthet-X ) composites presented a surface roughness comparable to a microfill ( Durafill ) , independent of the polishing system used , and a gloss comparable to a microfill , when polished with a one-step system ( Pogo ) . As compared with the multiple-step systems , the smoothest surfaces and the highest gloss values were achieved using the one-step system ( Pogo ) for all the evaluated composites PURPOSE This prospect i ve long-term clinical trial evaluated and compared the three-year clinical performance of an ormocer , a nanofilled , and a nanoceramic resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite placed in Class I and Class II cavities . METHODS Forty patients , each with four Class I and II restorations under occlusion , were enrolled in this study . A total of 160 restorations were placed , 25 % for each material , as follows : an ormocer-based composite , Admira ; a nanofilled resin composite , Filtek Supreme XT ; a nanoceramic resin composite , Ceram X ; and a microhybrid resin composite , Tetric Ceram . A single operator placed all restorations according to the manufacturers ' instructions . Immediately after placement the restorations were finished/polished . Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and at yearly intervals after placement by two other independent examiners using modified US Public Health Service ( USPHS ) criteria . The changes in the USPHS parameters during the three-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test . Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test . The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 . RESULTS All material s showed only minor changes , and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after three years . Only two ormocer , one nanofilled , and one microhybrid restorations in molars failed because of loss of retention . Regarding the clinical performance , there were no statistically significant differences among the material s used ( p>0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS The ormocer , nanofilled , and nanoceramic composites provided acceptable clinical performance over a three-year period PURPOSE As clinical diagnosis of secondary caries is the most common reason for restoration replacement , fluoride-releasing restorative material s have been developed to address this problem . The purpose s of this study were to verify demineralization inhibition produced by 5 restorative material s su bmi tted to two methods of in vitro cariogenic challenge and verify whether these methods influence material behavior by means of polarized light microscopy and microhardness . METHODS Class V cavities were prepared on buccal surfaces of 100 extracted primary molars and r and omly restored with 1 of the 4 fluoride-releasing material s , Fuji IX , Vitremer , Dyract , Tetric Ceram , and Filtek Z250 as control material ( N=10 ) . Specimens were su bmi tted to in vitro caries induction by two different methods , acid gel immersion , and pH cycling . Teeth su bmi tted to gel were then sectioned and prepared for polarized light microscopy in water , while teeth cycled were prepared for microhardness evaluation . RESULTS Polarized light microscopy : Means of demineralization areas ( microm(2 ) ) differed significantly , depending on the restorative material . Tukey 's test revealed the smallest demineralization areas adjacent to Fuji IX and Vitremer restorations , with no difference between them ( P>.05 ) . The greatest demineralization area mean values were verified using Dyract and Filtek Z250 , without differences between them ( P>.05 ) . Microhardness : Glass ionomer cements ( GICs ) performed better on the area of great cariogenic challenge , closer to the surface , than other material s indicating minor mineral loss during pH cycling . The compomer Dyract presented similar performance to GICs and composite resin Tetric Ceram , but it was better than Filtek Z250 . CONCLUSION The experimental model of caries lesion induction may influence material performance . GICs , however , are superior in preventing in vitro demineralization independently of the method OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate surface finish and gloss of a two-step  composite finishing/polishing ( F/P ) disc system compared with two multistep systems on five composites . METHODS Seventy-five disc-shaped composite specimens ( D=10.0 mm , 2 mm thick , n=15 per composite ) were made of microfill ( Durafill-D ) , nanofill ( Filtek Supreme-FS ) , nanohybrid ( Premise-PR ) , and microhybrids ( Filtek Z250-FZ , Esthet-EX ) . One side of each specimen was initially finished with a carbide bur . Five specimens of each resin composite were r and omly assigned to receive full F/P by each of the disc systems : two-step ( Enhance Flex NST-EF ) and four-step ( Sof-Lex-SL , Super-Snap-SS ) . Surface gloss was measured with a glossmeter and surface roughness was measured with a profilometer . Results were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)/Tukey 's ( α<0.05 ) . RESULTS No difference in gloss was noted among the three F/P systems when used with D and EX ; no difference between SL and EF when used with any composite , except for FS ; and no difference between SL and SS when used with any composite . SL and EF showed similar surface roughness when used on all composites , except for EX . EF and SS showed similar surface roughness on PR . SL and SS showed similar surface roughness values on every composite , except for FZ . CONCLUSIONS EF was capable of providing similar gloss and surface roughness to SL on four composites evaluated but was not able to produce as glossy or as smooth a surface as SS for three of the five composites PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical success potential of two nanocomposites placed in posterior teeth using an antibacterial adhesive system over 18 months . METHODS A total of 49 Class I and 47 Class II restorations were placed in the permanent teeth of thirty adult patients . The carious lesions were restored with Gr and io ( Voco ) or Filtek Supreme ( 3 M ESPE ) using a two-step self-etching antibacterial adhesive system Clearfil Protect Bond ( Kuraray ) . The restorations were finished with fine-grit diamond burs , Enhance polishing system , and Sof-Lex finishing brushes . The restorations were evaluated at baseline , 6 , 12 , and 18 months after placement using modified Ryge criteria for color stability , marginal discoloration , marginal adaptation , caries formation , anatomic form , postoperative sensitivity , surface roughness , and retention . RESULTS The changes in the parameters were assessed using the Cochran Q test and the McNemar test at a significance level of p < 0.05 . All restorations were classified as clinical ly satisfactory after 18 months . Statistical analysis demonstrated differences only in superficial roughness , with Gr and io exhibiting more surface roughness than Filtek Supreme ( p < 0.05 ) . CONCLUSION Posterior restorations built up with the novel nanocomposites using an antibacterial self-etching system showed satisfactory results at the 18-month recall appointment relative to all criteria except the surface texture in the case of Gr and io . Further evaluations are necessary for a more in-depth analysis Aim : To evaluate the effect of application a new-generation bulk-fill flowable composite resin as an intermediate material between composite resin and dental substrates on micro-leakage in Class V composite restorations . Material s and Methods : A total of 144 Class V cavities were prepared in 72 human molars . Specimens were then r and omly distributed among three groups according to adhesive system applied ( Group 1 : Clearfil SE Bond ; Group 2 : Adper Easy One ; Group 3 : Adhesive 200 T ) , and each group was divided into three subgroups according to liner material used ( Group A : No liner-control group ; Group B : Aelite Flo LV , low viscosity microhybrid composite ; Group C : Smart dentin replacement ) . All cavities were restored using resin composite ( Aelite LS , low shrinkage posterior composite ) . Specimens were stained with 0.5 % basic fuchsin and evaluated dye penetration . Results : There was no significant difference in dye penetration was found between the control and the experimental groups . Conclusions : Micro-leakage is not affected by the application of either conventional or new-generation flowable composite resin as an intermediate material between composite resin and dental substrates
There is no in vitro evidence to support the choice for nanofill or su bmi cron composites over traditional microhybrids based on better surface smoothness and /or gloss , or based upon maintenance of those superficial characteristics after surface challenges
OBJECTIVES Despite nanofill and su bmi cron composites ' aim to provide high initial polishing combined with superior smoothness and gloss retention , the question still remains whether clinicians should consider using these new material s over traditional microhybrids .
The aim of this paper was to systematic ally review the literature on how nanofills and su bmi crons react to polishing procedures and surface challenges in vitro compared with microhybrids .
The paper has also given an overview of the compositional characteristics of all resin composites and polishing systems whose performance was presented herein .