Evaluation of the spatter-reduction effectiveness of two dry-field isolation techniques.

Background: The authors conducted a study to compare the effectiveness of two dry-field isolation techniques with that of a control technique (no isolation) in reducing spatter from a dental operative site.

Methods: The authors designed a benchtop experiment to evaluate spatter patterns after performing simulated occlusal surface preparations on three typodont teeth in a dental manikin. Fluorescein dye served as the marker to enable visualization of the spatter distribution.

Three-year clinical evaluation of two flowable composites.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of two flowable composite resins used to restore occlusal caries lesions. Tetric Flow (Vivadent) and Esthet-X Flow (Dentsply/Caulk) are composite resins with decreased filler loading (Tetric Flow: 67% filler by weight, 43% by volume; Esthet-X Flow: 61% filler by weight, 53% by volume) and lower viscosity compared to conventional composite resins.

Method And Materials: Sixty-three teeth with occlusal caries were randomly assigned to calibrated practitioners who placed occlusal restorations (32 for Esthet-X Flow; 31 for Tetric Flow).

Two-year clinical evaluation of a posterior resin composite using a fourth- and fifth-generation bonding agent.

This study evaluated the clinical performance of a posterior resin composite used with a fourth- and fifth-generation bonding agent. Sixty-two Class I and II restorations were placed with half the restorations restored with Gluma Solid Bond (a fourth-generation bonding system, or total etch two-step system) and the other half restored with Gluma Comfort Bond and Desensitizer (a fifth-generation bonding system, or total etch one-step system). Solitaire 2 was used as the restorative material for all restorations.

Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as Class V filling materials.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the placement of two restorative materials, including a compomer (F2000, 3M ESPE) and a resin composite (Silux Plus, 3M ESPE), in non-carious cervical lesions using a self-etching bonding agent (F2000 self-etching primer/adhesive) and a fifth generation bonding agent (Single Bond, 3M ESPE) and to evaluate and compare these restorations for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomical form, retention, surface texture and marginal adaptation at baseline and annually for three years. F2000 and Silux Plus were used to restore the teeth with moderate-sized non-carious cervical lesions. F2000 was placed using two different bonding agents: F2000 self-etching primer/adhesive (F2000SE group) and Single Bond (F2000SB group); Silux Plus was placed as a control using Single Bond (SiluxSB group).

Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall.

Purpose: To place four restorative materials, including two resin-based composites (Pertac III and Synergy), an improved resin-modified glass-ionomer (Fuji II LC Improved), and a compomer (Dyract AP), in Class 5 non-carious cervical lesions and to evaluate and compare those restorations for marginal discoloration, anatomic form, surface texture, secondary caries, retention, and marginal adaptation at baseline and annually for 3 years.

Methods: The tested materials were used to restore moderate-size Class 5 non-carious cervical lesions. All materials were used following the manufacturers' directions for etching, bonding, curing, and finishing.

Galvanic interaction between gold and amalgam: effect of zinc, time and surface treatments.

Background: Previous studies have investigated the electrolytic action of oral electrogalvanism. However, the reasons why certain treatments or materials are successful in reducing galvanic current have not been addressed fully. This study assessed galvanic current with several materials, surface conditions and treatments.

Light curing--an update.

Light-cured, resin-based composite is an integral part of esthetic and restorative dentistry. This article reviews the performance and limitations of 4 types of curing lights and predicts that curing lights of the future will use light-emitting diode (LED). Currently, LED curing lights are not as powerful as plasma arc curing (PAC) or quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) lights.