Abstract Objective This randomized and clinical trial aimed to evaluate the performance of a new restorative Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of patients with systemic diseases compared with a posterior resin composite after 12 months. Methodology 134 restorations were placed at 30 patients presenting systemic diseases by a single clinician. NCCLs were allocated to two groups according to restorative system used: a conventional restorative GIC [Fuji Bulk (GC, Tokyo Japan) (FB)] and a posterior resin composite [G-ænial Posterior (GC, Tokyo Japan) (GP)] used with a universal adhesive using etch&rinse mode. All restorative procedures were conducted according to manufacturer’s instructions. Restorations were scored regarding retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after 1 week (baseline), 6, and 12 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests. Cochran Q and Mc Nemar’s tests were used to detect differences over time. Results After 12 months, recall rate was 93% and the rates of cumulative retention failure for FB and GP were 4.9% and 1.6% respectively. Both groups presented similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (FB 86.2%, GP 95.5%) and marginal discoloration (FB 93.8%, GP 97%) at 6-month recall, but FB restorations showed higher bravo scores than GP restorations for marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration after 12 months (p<0.05). Regarding surface texture, 2 FB restorations (3.1%) were scored as bravo after 6 months. All restorations were scored as alpha for secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity after 12 months. Conclusion Although the posterior resin composite demonstrated clinically higher alpha scores than the conventional GIC for marginal adaptation and discoloration, both materials successfully restored NCCLs at patients with systematic disease after a year. Clinical relevance Due to its acceptable clinical results, the tested conventional restorative GIC can be used for the restoration of NCCLs of patients with systemic diseases.

Abstract Objective: To analyze color change, microhardness and chemical composition of enamel bleached with in-office bleaching agent with different desensitizing application protocols. Materials and Methods: One hundred and seventeen polished anterior human enamel surfaces were obtained and randomly divided into nine groups (n = 13). After recording initial color, microhardness and chemical composition, the bleaching treatments were performed as G1: Signal Professional White Now POWDER&LIQUID FAST 38% Hydrogen peroxide(S); G2: S+Flor Opal/0.5% fluoride ion(F); G3: S+GC Tooth Mousse/Casein Phosphopeptide-Amorphous Calcium Phosphate (CPP-ACP) paste(TM); G4: S+UltraEZ/3% potassium nitrate&0.11% fluoride(U); G5: S+Signal Professional SENSITIVE PHASE 1/30% Nano-Hydroxyapatite (n-HAP) suspension(SP); G6: S-F mixture; G7: S-TM mixture; G8: S-U mixture; G9: S-SP mixture. Color, microhardness and chemical composition measurements were repeated after 1 and 14 days. The percentage of microhardness loss (PML) was calculated 1 and 14 days after bleaching. Data were analyzed with ANOVA, Welch ANOVA, Tukey and Dunnett T3 tests (p<0.05). Results: Color change was observed in all groups. The highest ΔE was observed at G7 after 1 day, and ΔE at G8 was the highest after 14 days (p<0.05). A decrease in microhardness was observed in all groups except G6 and G7 after 1 day. The microhardness of all groups increased after 14 days in comparison with 1 day after bleaching (p>0.05). PML was observed in all groups except G6 and G7 after bleaching and none of the groups showed PML after 14 days. No significant changes were observed after bleaching at Ca and P levels and Ca/P ratios at 1 or 14 days after bleaching (p>0.05). F mass increased only in G2 and G6, 1 day after bleaching (p<0.05). Conclusions: The use of desensitizing agents containing fluoride, CPP-ACP, potassium nitrate or n-HAP after in-office bleaching or mixed in bleaching agent did not inhibit the bleaching effect. However, they all recovered microhardness of enamel 14 days after in-office bleaching.

Abstract Objective The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the performances of two different universal adhesives and one etch-rinse adhesive for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Material and Methods Twenty patients with at least seven NCCLs were enrolled. Lesions were divided into seven groups according to adhesive systems and application modes: GSE: GLUMA Universal-self-etch, GSL: GLUMA Universal-selective etching, GER: GLUMA Universal-etch-and-rinse, ASE: All-Bond Universal-self-etch, ASL: All-Bond Universal-selective etching, AER: All-Bond Universal-etch-and-rinse, SBE (Control): Single Bond2-etch-and-rinse. A total of 155 NCCLs were restored with a nano hybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram). Restorations were scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, recurrent caries and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after one week, 6, 12 and 24 months. Statistical evaluations were performed using Chi-square tests (p=0.05). Results The recall rate was 81.9% after the 24-month follow-up. The cumulative retention rates for self-etch groups (GSE: 72.2%, ASE:75%) were significantly lower than other experimental groups (GSL: 93.7%, GER: 100%, ASL: 94.1%, AER: 100%, SBE: 100%) at the 24-month follow-up (p<0.05). Regarding marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration, GSE and ASE groups demonstrated more bravo scores after 6 and 12-month observations but differences were not significant (p>0.05). Only one restoration from ASL group demonstrated post-operative sensitivity at 6 and 12-month observations. No secondary caries was observed on the restorations at any recall. At the end of 24-month observations, no significant differences were detected among groups regarding any of the criteria assessed, except retention. Conclusion GLUMA Universal and All-Bond Universal showed better results in etch-and-rinse and selective etching mode compared to the self-etch mode regarding retention. Etch-and-rinse and selective etching application modes of the current universal adhesives tended to provide better clinical outcomes considering the criteria evaluated at the end of 24-month evaluation.