MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty test specimens were fabricated according to the manufacturer's instructions into rectangular test specimens. The hardness and surface roughness were tested, after 6 months of exposure to natural hot and dry weather. The hardness was measured through the International Rubber Hardness Degree (IRHD) scale using an automated hardness tester. The surface roughness was measured using a novel 3D optical noncontact technique using a combination of a light sectioning microscope and a computer vision system. Statistical Package for Social Sciences software SPSS/version 24 was used for analysis and a comparison between two independent variables was done using an independent t test, while more than two variables were analyzed, F test (ANOVA) to be used followed by a post hoc test to determine the level of significance between every two groups.

RESULTS: The hot and dry weather statistically influenced the hardness and surface roughness of MFSEM. Cosmesil M-511 showed the least hardness in test groups while A-2000 showed the hardest material (p < 0.05). A-2000 showed significant changes from rough in case of nonweathered to become smoother in weather followed by A-2186 (p < 0.05). Cosmesil M-511 showed the roughest material.

CONCLUSION: Cosmesil M-511 showed the least hard MFSEM after outdoor weathering while A-2000, the highest and least material showed hardness and surface roughness, respectively.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The materials were divided into two groups, Fuji IX GIC® (n = 30) and Cention N® (n = 30) and further divided (n = 10) to test three parameters, the fluoride releasing ability, flexural strength, and shear bond strength. Fluoride release was checked using fluoride ion-selective electrode, and flexural strength and shear bond strength were tested using universal testing machine (Intron 3366, UK).

RESULTS: Fluoride release of Fuji IX GIC® was significantly higher compared to that of control Cention N® over a period of 21 days. Flexural strength of Cention N® was significantly higher compared to Fuji IX GIC® and there were no significant differences in shear bond strength of both the materials.

CONCLUSION: From the results of the study, it can be concluded that Cention N® is an alkasite filling material for the complete and permanent replacement of tooth structure in posterior teeth and can be a good alternative when compared to GICs on the basis of their superior mechanical properties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty Turkom-Cera ceramic disks (10 mm × 3 mm) were prepared and randomly divided into four groups. The disks were wet ground to 1000-grit and subjected to four surface treatments: (1) No treatment (Control), (2) sandblasting, (3) silane application, and (4) sandblasting + silane. The four groups of 10 specimens each were bonded with Panavia-F resin cement according to manufacturer's recommendations. The SBS was determined using the universal testing machine (Instron) at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Failure modes were recorded and a qualitative micromorphologic examination of different surface treatments was performed. The data were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) tests.

RESULTS: The SBS of the control, sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups were: 10.8 ± 1.5, 16.4 ± 3.4, 16.2 ± 2.5, and 19.1 ± 2.4 MPa respectively. According to the Tukey HSD test, only the mean SBS of the control group was significantly different from the other three groups. There was no significant difference between sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups.

CONCLUSION: In this study, the three surface treatments used improved the bond strength of resin cement to Turkom-Cera disks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a stainless-steel mold, disc-shaped wax patterns with dimensions of 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick (in accordance with ADA Specification No. 12) were created and prepared for a total of 75 acrylic samples. Dimensions of all 75 acrylic samples were checked with a digital Vernier caliper. About 25 samples of denture base material were immersed in three different chemical disinfectants: Group I: immersed in chlorhexidine gluconate solution, group II: immersed in sodium hypochlorite solution, and group III: immersed in glutaraldehyde solution. All samples were scrubbed daily for 1 minute with the appropriate disinfectant and submerged for 10 minutes in the same disinfectant. Between disinfection cycles, samples were kept in distilled water at 37°C. Color stability was measured using a reflection spectrophotometer. Surface roughness values were measured by a profilometer at baseline following 15 days and 30 days.

RESULTS: After 15 days, the color stability was better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.88 ± 0.24) than sodium hypochlorite solution (4.74 ± 0.18) and glutaraldehyde solution group (4.46 ± 0.16). The mean surface roughness was less in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.10 ± 0.19), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.48 ± 0.09) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (2.64 ± 0.03). After 30 days, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.40 ± 0.02), followed by sodium hypochlorite solution (4.06 ± 0.16) and glutaraldehyde solution group (3.87 ± 0.17). The mean surface roughness was significantly lesser in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.41 ± 0.14), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.94 ± 0.08) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (3.02 ± 0.13).

CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group than sodium hypochlorite solution and glutaraldehyde solution group. But the surface roughness was significantly lesser in the glutaraldehyde solution group, followed by the chlorhexidine gluconate and sodium hypochlorite solution group.