This in vitro study aimed to investigate the potential of CO2 lasers associated with different fluoride agents in inhibiting enamel erosion. Human enamel samples were randomly divided into 9 groups (n = 12): G1-eroded enamel; G2-APF gel; G3-AmF/NaF gel; G4-AmF/SnF2 solution; G5-CO2 laser (λ = 10.6 µm)+APF gel; G6-CO2 laser+AmF/NaF gel; G7-CO2laser+AmF/SnF2solution; G8-CO2 laser; and G9-sound enamel. The CO2 laser parameters were: 0.45 J/cm2; 6 μs; and 128 Hz. After surface treatment, the samples (except from G9) were immersed in 1% citric acid (pH 4.0, 3 min). Surface microhardness was measured at baseline and after surface softening. The data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s tests (p < 0.05). G2 (407.6 ± 37.3) presented the highest mean SMH after softening, followed by G3 (407.5 ± 29.8) and G5 (399.7 ± 32.9). Within the fluoride-treated groups, G4 (309.0 ± 24.4) had a significantly lower mean SMH than G3 and G2, which were statistically similar to each other. AmF/NaF and APF application showed potential to protect and control erosion progression in dental enamel, and CO2 laser irradiation at 0.45J/cm2 did not influence its efficacy. CO2 laser irradiation alone under the same conditions could also significantly decrease enamel erosive mineral loss, although at lower levels.

Composite resins might be susceptible to degradation and staining when in contact with some foods and drinks. This study evaluated color alteration and changes in microhardness of a microhybrid composite after immersion in different colored foods and determined whether there was a correlation between these two variables. Eighty composite disks were randomly divided into 8 experimental groups (n = 10): kept dry; deionized water; orange juice; passion fruit juice; grape juice; ketchup; mustard and soy sauce. The disks were individually immersed in their respective test substance at 37 ºC, for a period of 28 days. Superficial analysis of the disk specimens was performed by taking microhardness measurements (Vickers, 50 g load for 45 seconds) and color alterations were determined with a spectrophotometer (CINTRA 10- using a CIEL*a*b* system, 400-700 nm wavelength, illuminant d65 and standard observer of 2º) at the following times: baseline (before immersion), 1, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days. Results were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05). Both variables were also submitted to Pearson's correlation test (p < 0.05). The passion fruit group underwent the greatest microhardness change, while the mustard group suffered the greatest color alteration. Significant positive correlation was found between the two variables for the groups deionized water, grape juice, soy sauce and ketchup. Not all color alteration could be associated with surface degradation.

This study evaluated the influence of curing tip distance, shade and filler particle size on Vickers microhardness (VHN) of composite resins. Two composites were tested: Filtek Z250 microhybrid (3M ESPE; shades A1 and A3.5) and Filtek Supreme nanofilled (3M ESPE; shades A1B and A3.5B). For each resin, 42 specimens (5 mm in diameter and 2 mm height) were prepared being 21 for each shade. The specimens were exposed using a 20-second exposure to a quartz-tungsten-halogen light source with an irradiance of approximately 560 mW/cm², at the following distances: 0 mm (surface contact), 6 mm and 12 mm from composite surface. Effectiveness of cure of different resins, shades and curing distances was determined by measuring the top and bottom hardness (VHN) of specimens using a digital microhardness tester (load: 50 g; dwell time: 45 seconds) 24 hours following curing. The hardness ratio was calculated by dividing VHN of the bottom surface by VHN of top surface. Three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (p<0.05) revealed statistically significant differences for all analyzed factors. As for top hardness, as microhardness ratio (bottom/top), the factors shade, distance and composite filler particle size exerted influence on resin curing. Lighter shade composites (A1 and A1B) showed higher hardness values. At 6 and 12 mm curing tip distances, hardness was lower when compared to 0 mm. The microhybrid composite resin presented higheer hardness, being its microhardness ratio satisfactory only at 0 mm for both shades and at 6 mm for the lighter shade. The nanofilled composite resin did not present satisfactory microhardness at the bottom while the microhybrid composite resin had higher hardness than the nanofilled. Composite's curing tip distance and shade can influence hardness.