Influence of thicknesses of smear layer on the transdentinal cytotoxicity and bond strength of a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement

Setting kinetics and mechanical properties of flax fibre reinforced glass ionomer restorative materials

Regardless of the excellent properties of glass ionomer cements, their poor mechanical properties limit their applications to non-load bearing areas. This study aimed to investigate the effect of incorporated short, chopped and randomly distributed flax fibers (0, 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5 and 25 wt%) on setting reaction kinetics, and mechanical and morphological properties of glass ionomer cements. Addition of flax fibers did not significantly affect the setting reaction extent. According to their content, flax fibers increased the compressive (from 148 to 250 MPa) and flexure strength (from 20 to 42 MPa). They also changed the brittle behavior of glass ionomer cements to a plastic one. They significantly reduced the compressive (from 3 to 1.3 GPa) and flexure modulus (from 19 to 14 GPa). Accordingly, flax fiber-modified glass ionomer cements could be potentially used in high-stress bearing areas.

The Retentive Strength of Cemented Zirconium Oxide Crowns after Dentin Pretreatment with Desensitizing Paste Containing 8% Arginine and Calcium Carbonate

The effect of dentin pretreatment with Desensitizing Paste containing 8% arginine and calcium carbonate on the retention of zirconium oxide (Y-TZP) crowns was tested. Forty molar teeth were mounted and prepared using a standardized protocol. Y-TZP crowns were produced using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology. The 40 prepared teeth were either pretreated with Desensitizing Paste or not pretreated. After two weeks, each group was subdivided into two groups, cemented with either Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) or Self Adhesive Resin Cement (SARC)). Prior to cementation, the surface areas of the prepared teeth were measured. After aging, the cemented crown-tooth assemblies were tested for retentive strength using a universal testing machine. The debonded surfaces of the teeth and crowns were examined microscopically at 10× magnification. Pretreating the dentin surfaces with Desensitizing Paste prior to cementation did not affect the retention of the Y-TZP crowns. The retentive values for RMGIC (3.04 ± 0.77 MPa) were significantly higher than those for SARC (2.28 ± 0.58 MPa). The predominant failure modes for the RMGIC and SARC were adhesive cement-dentin and adhesive cement-crown, respectively. An 8.0% arginine and calcium carbonate in-office desensitizing paste can be safely used to reduce post-cementation sensitivity without reducing the retentive strength of Y-TZP crowns.

Effectiveness of a Canal Brush on Removing Smear Layer: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

This study evaluated the effectiveness of a highly flexible endodontic brush made of polypropylene canal brush (CanalBrush; Coltène) on smear layer removal from the canal walls when used according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Forty-four single-rooted mandibular incisors were prepared to apical size 30/0.06 and randomly divided into three groups A, B and C, where the final irrigation regimen was 10 mL 17% EDTA and 10 mL 2.5% NaOCl for group A, 10 mL EDTA, 5 mL NaOCl, CanalBrush for 20 s at 450 rpm and 5 mL NaOCl for group B, 10 mL NaOCl, CanalBrush and 10 mL NaOCl for group C. One medium-sized CanalBrush was used for each root canal and all brushes were examined under the optical microscope after application to evaluate bristle deformation. Afterwards, roots were split longitudinally and the presence of smear layer was evaluated under a scanning electron microscope. Used brushes invariably exhibited bristle deformation. Group C exhibited the highest means of smear layer in all thirds. Comparing the apical thirds in all groups, there was no statistical difference between groups A and B (3.64±0.48 and 3.68±0.62 respectively), while group C exhibited significantly higher scores (3.9±0.28) than the other two groups. In conclusion, the CanalBrush proved unable to remove smear layer from the instrumented root canals, when used according to the manufacturers' instructions.