SUMMARY Objective: This split-mouth clinical study investigated the effect of luting cement on the performance of veneered yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) zirconia crowns. Methods and Materials: A total of 60 crowns prepared with Y-TZP coping and press-on porcelain were made with a split-mouth design in 30 participants. The crowns were cemented either with glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Meron, Voco) or with self-adhesive resin cement (Bifix-SE, Voco). The restorations were assessed immediately after treatment and after 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. The parameters analyzed were retention, color stability, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, anatomic form, and secondary caries. The differences between the groups were analyzed by the Fisher exact test in each period of evaluation. The survival rate was analyzed with the Kaplan–Meier and log-rank test (α=0.05). Results: After 48 months, 20 participants attended the recall. During the period of evaluation, 1 crown cemented with glass ionomer cement and 1 crown cemented with resin cement lost retention. Color match, marginal discoloration and adaptation, surface roughness, and anatomic form did not change in any of the periods evaluated, and no secondary caries was observed. No significant differences were found between the 2 luting cements for any of the clinical parameters analyzed, nor for the survival rates during the study. Conclusions: The type of cement did not influence the performance of the crowns after 48 months of clinical use. Both cements resulted in adequate retention rates, aesthetic and functional outcomes, and biological response.

Clinical Relevance The clinical behavior of pure ormocer composite is reliable when used in class II restorations after 24 months of evaluation. SUMMARY Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of class II restorations made using pure ormocer and methacrylate composites in a period of 24 months, using a split-mouth double-blinded randomized design. Methods and Materials: Thirty patients received two class II restorations (n=60) performed with different composites: GrandioSO (methacrylate, nanohybrid) and Admira Fusion (pure ormocer, nanohybrid). The universal adhesive system (Futurabond M+) was applied in all restorations using the self-etching mode. The composites were placed by the incremental technique. The restorations were evaluated using the FDI World Dental Federation criteria after 7 days and 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Results: After 24 months, 23 patients attended the recall and 46 restorations were evaluated. Fisher's statistical analysis (5%) showed no difference between the materials. One pure ormocer restoration and one methacrylate restoration presented small fractures. Only one tooth suffered a fracture of the remaining tooth structure. Admira Fusion presented, respectively, 100%, 95.66%, and 100% of acceptable performance in general scores for esthetic, functional, and biological properties. GrandioSO presented, respectively, 100%, 91.31%, and 95.66% of acceptable performance in the same scores. Conclusion: After 24-month follow-up, nonsignificant differences between the tested composites was detected. Both materials provided acceptable clinical performance in class II restorations.

SUMMARY The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three desensitizing agents to provide relief to dentin hypersensitivity after one session in a four-week follow-up. Forty selected patients participated in a double-blind study following a split-mouth model. One application of the desensitizing agents (A, Admira Protect [Voco]; B, Bifluorid 12 [Voco]; and C, Colgate Pro-Relief in office [Colgate Palmolive]) was performed in three different quadrants for each patient. Each tooth was evaluated by tactile and evaporative stimuli, and the sensitivity response was measured using the Visual Analogue Scale. Evaluations were performed at baseline, immediately after treatment, and after one, two, three, and four weeks. The application of Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn multiple comparisons tests (5%) for both tactile and evaporative stimuli showed that all agents presented a significant desensitizing effect. In groups A and B this relief was maintained for four and three weeks, respectively, as measured by tactile stimulus and for four weeks with evaporative stimulus. The desensitizing effect for group C was maintained for two weeks for both tactile and evaporative stimuli. It is concluded that all desensitizing agents tested were effective in reducing sensitivity compared to baseline values. One application of Admira Protect and Bifluorid 12 presented a longer-lasting desensitizing effect than did Colgate Pro-Relief (applied in the office) on both tactile and evaporative stimuli.

SUMMARY Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the two-year clinical performance of Class III, IV, and V composite restorations using a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system (2-ERA) and three one-step self-etching adhesive systems (1-SEAs). Material and Methods Two hundred Class III, IV, and V composite restorations were placed into 50 patients. Each patient received four composite restorations (Amaris, Voco), and these restorations were bonded with one of three 1-SEAs (Futurabond M, Voco; Clearfil S3 Bond, Kuraray; and Optibond All-in-One, Kerr) or one 2-ERA (Adper Single Bond 2/3M ESPE). The four adhesive systems were evaluated at baseline and after 24 months using the following criteria: restoration retention, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, caries occurrence, postoperative sensitivity and preservation of tooth vitality. After two years, 162 restorations were evaluated in 41 patients. Data were analyzed using the χ 2 test ( p <0.05). Results There were no statistically significant differences between the 2-ERA and the 1-SEAs regarding the evaluated parameters ( p >0.05). Conclusion The 1-SEAs showed good clinical performance at the end of 24 months.