Issues

Pulp exposed to triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) containing resin composite may be at higher risk of endodontic treatment.

Using low-shrink composites and placing the gingival margin in enamel resulted in a significant reduction in microleakage in Class II resin composite restorations, thus probably improving clinical outcomes. Conversely, the use of fiber inserts had no influence on microleakage in Class II resin composite restorations.

High-concentration bleaching can etch the post surface and improve bonding of the resin core and resin cement.

One bonding step with SE Bond or Silorane Adhesive with either nano-ionomer or the respective composite could provide adequately sealed restorations in the deep interproximal box with a simplified and time-saving open sandwich technique.

There is little clinical evidence on the performance of glass-fiber posts to guide clinical decisions when selecting the cementation strategy. This meta-analysis of in vitro studies suggests that the use of self-adhesive resin cement could improve the retention of glass-fiber posts.

Clinicians should not take for granted what appears to be the easy task of light curing. Evidence-based steps are provided that will help clinicians improve their light curing technique.

Quality impressions require a dry oral environment. This can be difficult on medically compromised patients. During impression taking, simultaneous isolation along with check and tongue retraction, can be achieved using a dry field illuminator.

Advancements in material technology and clinical techniques led to increasing indications for minimally invasive treatment approaches with direct resin composite restorations. Proximal box elevation, an example of an elaborate clinical technique, provides a two-step procedure for the restoration of deep and undermining defects in the proximal area.

Ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic composites exhibited clinical performance similar to that of conventional microhybrid composite in Class I and Class II restorations.

Both composite resin and dental amalgam are being utilized as direct restorative materials in military dental clinics. When clinicians are choosing one material over another material, it is important to evaluate patient and tooth factors for optimum clinical success.

The low-fusing glass application followed by hydrofluoric acid etching and silanization seems to be a promising method for improving the resin bond strength to yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia, but the adhesion to this substrate is still a challenge.

Bond strength suffered degradation over time and was not influenced by dentin treatments with chlorhexidine and/or ethanol. Adhesive bond degradation was less affected under in situ conditions than in vitro.

Immediate dentin sealing with Clearfil SE Bond can contribute to less cuspal deflection of teeth restored with composite resin inlays luted with Panavia F.

Bio-active glass (BAG) powder exhibits more air-abrasion conservative cutting characteristics compared to alumina powder, particularly within specific operating parameters. Clinical air-abrasion use should be preceded by studying the powder flow rate to identify the factors affecting the abrasive powder propulsion.

Distinguishing among images of restorative materials, carious lesions, and sound dental tissue is challenging when making a radiographic diagnosis. Therefore, assessing the adaptation and integrity of restorations depends on the radiopacity of the restorative material. If the material is too radiopaque, it may be difficult to distinguish from dental tissues. If poorly radiopaque, it can camouflage possible failures.

Resin dentin bonding can be performed immediately after sodium perborate bleaching without the need for sodium ascorbate pretreatment; however, the two-step self-etching adhesive performed better than the all-in-one system. The all-in-one adhesive, Xeno IV, exhibited significantly lower microshear bond strength when bonded to positions associated with larger-diameter dentinal tubules.