METHODS: Visible proximal surfaces of extracted human teeth were assessed by ICDAS-II before setting them in five manikin mouth models. Then contacting proximal surfaces in mouth models were assessed by BW and CS. Histological validation with polarized-light microscopy served as a gold standard. Pairwise comparisons were performed on area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of the three methods, and corrected using Bonferroni's method. Sensitivities and specificities were compared using a test of proportions and AUC values were compared using DeLong's method.
RESULTS: The CS presented significantly higher sensitivity (0.933) than ICDAS-II (0.733, P = 0.01) and BW (0.267, P
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.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The surface treatments used in this study appeared to be suitable methods for the cementation of glass infiltrated all-ceramic restorations.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this laboratory and finite element analysis study was to investigate the effects on the formation of a hybrid layer of an experimental silane coupling agent containing primer solutions composed of different percentages of hydroxyethyl methacrylate.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 125 sound human premolars were restored in vitro. Simple class I cavities were formed on each tooth, followed by the application of different compositions of experimental silane primers (0%, 5%, 25%, and 50% of hydroxyethyl methacrylate), bonding agents, and dental composite resins. Bond strength tests and scanning electron microscopy analyses were performed. The laboratory experimental results were validated with finite element analysis to determine the pattern of stress distribution. Simulations were conducted by placing the restorative composite resin in a premolar tooth by imitating simple class I cavities. The laboratory and finite element analysis data were significantly different from each other, as determined by 1-way ANOVA. A post hoc analysis was conducted on the bond strength data to further clarify the effects of silane primers.
RESULTS: The strongest bond of hybrid layer (16.96 MPa) was found in the primer with 25% hydroxyethyl methacrylate, suggesting a barely visible hybrid layer barrier. The control specimens without the application of the primer and the primer specimens with no hydroxyethyl methacrylate exhibited the lowest strength values (8.30 MPa and 11.78 MPa) with intermittent and low visibility of the hybrid layer. These results were supported by finite element analysis that suggested an evenly distributed stress on the model with 25% hydroxyethyl methacrylate.
CONCLUSIONS: Different compositions of experimental silane primers affected the formation of the hybrid layer and its resulting bond strength.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 35 questions was distributed by mail or an online survey to 425 registered dentists selected according to place of work by stratified random sampling.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three dentists responded to the survey. A positive attitude towards FS and PRR was noted among most Malaysian dentists. About half of the respondents used FS/PRR occasionally (48.4%), while few (13.7%) applied them routinely. The majority of the dentists agreed that minimally invasive dentistry is important and FS are effective in caries prevention, using them on high caries-risk individuals. Most of the dentists used pumice or paste to clean teeth before placing FS/PRR. A significant number of dentists used a bonding agent prior to placing FS. Although only 57.5% dentists were aware of guidelines for FS use, most dentists agreed that guidelines are important.
CONCLUSION: Although there was a positive attitude towards FS/PRR, few dentists applied them routinely. Some of the steps undertaken for placement of FS and PRR were outdated. Updating local guidelines for dentists to ensure uniform practice of FS and PRR is justified.