Resumen Evaluar la resistencia adhesiva en microtracción (µTBS) de dos cementos resinosos a resinas CAD/CAM impresas y fresadas indicadas para restauraciones provisionales. Bloques (5 x 5 x 5mm) de tres resinas impresas (Cosmos3DTemp / Yller; Resilab3D Temp / Wilcos and SmartPrint BioTemp, / MMTech) y una resina fresada (VitaCAD-Temp, VITA) fueron fabricados. La mitad de los especímenes fueron arenados y el resto no recibió tratamiento mecánico. Dos bloques con condiciones de tratamiento iguales fueron cementados con cemento resinoso (PanaviaV5 / Kuraray Noritake y RelyX Ultimate / 3M Oral Care). Después de 24 horas los bloques fueron seccionados en palitos de 1 mm² de área. En la mitad de los especímenes se midió la TBS inmediatamente y el resto fue termociclado (5000 ciclos, 30s remojo, 5s transferencia) antes de la prueba de TBS. Se aplica un análisis estadístico por Modelo Linear General con 4 factores (material*arenado*cemento*termociclado). La resina VITA presentó la menor µTBS, independientemente del cemento usado, el arenado y el termociclado. Sin embargo, el arenado aumentó la µTBS de VIT, especialmente después del termociclado. Por otro lado, el arenado no resultó en un aumento significativo de la µTBS de las resinas impresas. El arenado no fue beneficiosos para las resinas impresas, aunque es un paso crucial para la cementación adhesive de las resinas fresadas. El arenado afecta la integridad de las capas de las resinas impresas, sin generar un beneficio en la TBS.

Abstract To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of two resin cements to 3D printed and milled CAD/CAM resins used for provisional fixed partial dentures. Blocks (5 x 5 x 5 mm) of three 3D-printed resins (Cosmos3DTemp / Yller; Resilab3D Temp / Wilcos and SmartPrint BioTemp, / MMTech) were printed (Photon, Anycubic Technology Co.). A milled material (VitaCAD-Temp, VITA) was used as control. Half the specimens were sandblasted and the rest were untreated. Two blocks were bonded with the corresponding resin cement: PanaviaV5 (Kuraray Noritake) and RelyX Ultimate (3M Oral Care). After 24 hours, the bonded blocks were sectioned into 1 x 1 mm side sticks. Half the beams were tested for µTBS and the other half was thermocycled (5000 cycles, 30s dwell-time, 5s transfer time) before µTBS testing. A four way Generalized Linear Model (material*sandblasting*cement*aging) analysis was applied. VITA exhibited the lowest µTBS, regardless of the cement, sandblasting and thermocycling. Sandblasting significantly improved the µTBS of VIT, especially after aging, but did not improve the µTBS of 3D printed resins. Sandblasting was not beneficial for 3D printed resins, although is crucial for adhesive cementation of milled temporary resins. Airborne particle abrasion affects the integrity of 3D-printed resins, without producing a benefit on the microtensile bond strength of these materials. However, sandblasting is crucial to achieve a high bond strength on milled temporary resins.

Abstract This study evaluated the effect of toothbrushing on enamel-cementing material-ceramic bonded interfaces, using different cementing materials. Materials and Methods: Thirty enamel and thirty ceramic blocks were bonded with cementing materials to produce the samples that were bonded with three types of cementing materials: 1- RelyX Ultimate resin cement (REXU), 2- RelyX Unicem 2 self-adhesive resin cement (REU2) and 3- heated Z100 restorative composite (60°C). Bonded interfaces of the samples were toothbrushed and the surfaces of the 3 cementing materials were evaluated for roughness (RG, in µm), roughness profile (RP, in µm), and volume loss (VL, in µm3) (baseline and after 20,000 and 60,000 toothbrushing cycles). Data were evaluated by Generalized Linear Analysis (two factors: “material” and “toothbrushing cycle”) and Bonferroni test (α=0.05). Results: REXU and Z100 exhibited lower RG than that presented by REU2, except after 60,000 toothbrushing cycles when only Z100 differed from REU2. The increase in toothbrushing cycles increased the RG and RP for all materials. REU2 also showed higher RP than those showed by REXU and Z100 when it was analyzed regarding the enamel. The VL of Z100 was the lowest with 20,000 toothbrushing cycles, regarding the enamel and ceramic. For 60,000 cycles, REXU showed the lowest VL regarding the ceramic, and REU2 had the highest VL regarding the enamel and ceramic. Conclusion: In general, REXU and Z100 showed the best results regarding the evaluations performed and the REU2 exhibited the highest RG, RP, and VL.

Resumo Este estudo avaliou o efeito da escovação nas interfaces de união esmalte-material cimentante-cerâmica, utilizando diferentes materiais cimentantes. Materiais e Métodos: Trinta esmaltes e trinta blocos cerâmicos foram unidos com materiais de cimentação para produzir as amostras que foram unidas com três tipos de materiais de cimentação: 1- cimento resinoso RelyX Ultimate (REXU), 2- cimento resinoso autoadesivo RelyX Unicem 2 (REU2) e 3-compósito restaurador aquecido Z100 (60°C). As interfaces coladas das amostras foram escovadas e as superfícies dos 3 materiais cimentantes foram avaliadas quanto à rugosidade (RG, em µm), perfil de rugosidade (RP, em µm) e perda de volume (VL, em µm3) (baseline e após 20.000 e 60.000 ciclos de escovação). Os dados foram avaliados por Análise Linear Generalizada (dois fatores: “material” e “ciclo de escovação”) e teste de Bonferroni (α=0,05). Resultados: REXU e Z100 apresentaram menor RG do que REU2, exceto após 60.000 ciclos de escovação, quando Z100 diferiu apenas de REU2. O aumento dos ciclos de escovação aumentou o RG e RP para todos os materiais. O REU2 também apresentou PR maior que o REXU e Z100, quando analisado em relação ao esmalte. O VL de Z100 foi o menor com 20.000 ciclos de escovação em relação ao esmalte e cerâmica. Para 60.000 ciclos, o REXU apresentou o menor VL em relação à cerâmica e o REU2 o maior VL em relação ao esmalte e à cerâmica. Conclusão: De maneira geral, REXU e Z100 apresentaram os melhores resultados nas avaliações realizadas e o REU2 apresentou os maiores RG, RP e VL..

Abstract This study aimed to evaluate surface roughness (Sa), roughness profile (Rv), and enamel wear after brushing with different whitening toothpastes and charcoal powders. Sixty (n = 10) bovine enamel blocks (6 × 6 × 3 mm) were randomly distributed into six groups according to toothpaste type: regular toothpaste (CONT), toothpaste containing 2% hydrogen peroxide (HP), toothpaste containing titanium dioxide (TiO2), toothpaste containing charcoal (COAL), toothpaste containing charcoal and TiO2 (COAL+TiO2), and activated charcoal powder (COAL_PWD). Each block was subjected to 30,000 reciprocal cycles at a 1:3 proportion slurry. After brushing, the blocks were analyzed using an optical profilometer to determine Sa, Rv, and enamel wear. In addition, representative 3D images of each group and wear profiles were obtained. Sa was analyzed using generalized linear models followed by Bonferroni correction, whereas Rv was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance. After brushing, COAL and COAL+TiO2 showed higher Sa values than COAL_PWD. However, no significant difference was observed in Sa between whitening toothpaste and COAL_PWD, and CONT (p > 0.05). In addition, no differences were observed among the groups in Rv (p > 0.05). Conversely, enamel wear was higher for TiO2, COAL, COAL+TiO2, and COAL_PWD than for CONT. CONT showed the least enamel wear, whereas HP showed intermediate values. Representative 3D images and line profiles showed lower step-height and lower mean surface losses for the CONT and HP groups than for the other groups. Whitening toothpastes and COAL_PWD did not increase Sa or Rv compared with CONT, while CONT demonstrated lower enamel wear.

Resumo Esse estudo mensurou e comparou a irradiância e a energia de quatro fotopolimerizadores comerciais (Elipar S10, Elipar DeepCure-S, Corded VALO e Bluephase Style) utilizando diferentes tipos de radiômetros. Os dispositivos utilizados para analisar os fotopolimerizadores foram classificados em portáteis analógicos (Henry Schein, Spring, Demetron 100A, Demetron 100B e Demetron 200), portáteis digitais (Bluephase 1, Bluephase II, Coltolux, CureRite e Hilux), ou instrumentos laboratoriais (Thermopile e Integrating Sphere). Os instrumentos laboratoriais e o radiômetro Bluephase II também foram utilizados para medir a energia dos fotopolimerizadores (mW). Os fotopolimerizadores foram ativados por 20 s (n=5). Os dados foram analisados utilizando Kruskal-Wallis e teste de Student-Newman-Keuls (a=0,05). Dentre os fotopolimerizadores, os instrumentos laboratoriais apresentaram diferentes valores de irradiância, exceto para o Corded VALO. O Coltolux e o Hilux mensuraram uma irradiância maior comparado aos instrumentos de laboratório para os quatro fotopolimerizadores testados. Para o mesmo fotopolimerizador, os radiômetros analógicos portáteis mensuraram menores valores de irradiância quando comparados aos digitais portáteis ou aos instrumentos laboratoriais, exceto quando utilizado o Spring para o Elipar S10. Nenhuma diferença foi observada entre os instrumentos laboratoriais na irradiância do Corded VALO. Para a medição da energia, nenhuma diferença foi observada usando Thermopile e a Integrating Sphere para o Corded VALO. Para os outros fotopolimerizadores, cada instrumento indicou uma energia diferente. Esses achados sugerem que radiômetros portáteis utilizados pelos cirurgiões-dentistas (analógico ou digital) exibem uma ampla gama de valores de irradiância e podem mostrar medidas inferiores comparados aos instrumentos de laboratório.

Abstract This study measured and compared exitance irradiance and power of 4 commercial dental light-curing units (LCU) (Elipar S10, Elipar DeepCure-S, Corded VALO and Bluephase Style) using different types of radiometers. The devices used to analyze the LCU were classified as either handheld analog (Henry Schein, Spring, Demetron 100A, Demetron 100B and Demetron 200), handheld digital (Bluephase 1, Bluephase II, Coltolux, CureRite and Hilux), or laboratory instruments (Thermopile and Integrating Sphere). The laboratory instruments and the Bluephase II radiometer were also used to measure the LCU’s power (mW). The LCU’s were activated for 20 s (n=5). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test (a=0.05). Among the LCU, the laboratory instruments presented different irradiance values, except for Corded VALO. The Coltolux and Hilux radiometers measured greater irradiance values compared to the laboratory instruments for the four LCUs tested. Within a given LCU, handheld analog units measured lower irradiance values, compared to handheld digital and laboratory instruments, except using the Spring radiometer for the Elipar S10 LCU. None of the handheld radiometers were able to measure similar irradiance values compared to laboratory instruments, except for Elipar S10 when comparing Bluephase 1 and Thermopile. Regarding power measurement, Bluephase II always presented the lowest values compared to the laboratory instruments. These findings suggest that the handheld radiometers utilized by practitioners (analog or digital) exhibit a wide range of irradiance values and may show lower outcomes compared to laboratory based instruments.

Abstract: The effects of tooth brushing could affect the long-term esthetic outcome of composite restorations. This study evaluated the effect of two different emission spectrum light-curing units on the surface roughness, roughness profile, topography and microhardness of bulk-fill composites after in vitro toothbrushing. Valo (multiple-peak) and Demi Ultra (single-peak) curing lights were each used for 10s to polymerize three bulk-fill resin composites: Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TET) and Surefil SDR Flow (SDR). After 30,000 reciprocal strokes in a toothbrushing machine, the roughness profile, surface roughness, surface morphology, and microhardness were examined. Representative SEM images were also obtained. When light-cured with the Demi Ultra, SDR showed the most loss in volume compared to the other composites and higher volume loss compared to when was light-cured with Valo. The highest surface roughness and roughness profile values were found in SDR after toothbrushing, for both light-curing units tested. FBF always had the greatest microhardness values. Light-curing TET with Valo resulted in higher microhardness compared to when using the Demi Ultra. Confocal and SEM images show that toothbrushing resulted in smoother surfaces for FBF and TET. All composites exhibited surface volume loss after toothbrushing. The loss in volume of SDR depended on the light-curing unit used. Toothbrushing can alter the surface roughness and superficial aspect of some bulk-fill composites. The choice of light-curing unit did not affect the roughness profile, but, depending on the composite, it affected the microhardness.