Search

Abstract Aim Assessment of interfacial gaps and mechanical impact of the materials layering between Cention Forte and Equia Forte restorations with two forms of Calcium Silicate Cements (CSCs) at the interfacial surface at two-time intervals. Methodology Six groups of 72 primary molars were categorized by restorative material type and CSCs: Cention Forte(C), Cention Forte without primer (Cx), and Equia Forte (EQ). All were applied over MTA Angelus powder (M) or Bio-C Repair putty (P). Restorative materials were applied immediately (subgroup A) or delayed (Subgroup B). SEM was used to detect interface gaps. EDX measured element migration from the interface at specific distances. Vickers Microhardness Tester assessed microhardness. Results Regarding SEM, there were no gaps between CSCs interfaces of both types (Powder and Putty) with all restorations at two-time intervals. Microhardness, there was a statistically nonsignificant difference between subgroups A & B in all groups except at 200 µm in the Cention groups (subgroup A) was significantly lower than (subgroup B) (P = 0.002, 0.03) respectively. At 400 µm in the MTA Angelus powder Group Cx, subgroup A was significantly higher than subgroup B (P = 0.003*). While Bio-C Repair putty in Group EQ (subgroup A) was significantly higher than (Subgroup B) (P

Background: Restoration of first permanent molars with MIH is considered a challenge for dentists because the enamel has less flexibility and hardness with increased porosity and organic content. Materials and methods: The current study was a randomized control trial in which fifty-two first permanent molars were distributed equally into two groups (Z) teeth that received zirconia overlays and (EC) teeth that received IPS e.max CAD overlays. Clinical assessments were carried out at baseline, 6, and 12 months using modified FDI World Dental Federation criteria. Results: After the observational period of one year, all restorations were still in function with no significant differences in the esthetic, functional, and biological performance of overlays fabricated with zirconia and IPS e.max CAD except one case have been fractured in the group (EC) and three cases have been de-bonding in the group (Z). Conclusions: Using monolithic zirconia and IPS e.max CAD overlays could be a viable selection for restoring MIH-affected posterior teeth. In further studies, it is advisable to assess the restoration that combines strength with adhesive properties like zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic restoration.

Background: During mechanical preparation of the primary root canal, the original anatomy of the tooth should be preserved and the instrument should be perfectly balanced centrally into the canal space for reducing the probability of canal transportation. The aim of this research was to compare canal transportation and canal centring ability in primary root canals using ProTaper Next (Dentsply Mailfair,), AF baby (Fanta), and Kidzo Elephant (Endostar, Poldent Sp.) files. Materials and methods: Eighteen root canals were randomly divided into 3 experimental groups (n = 6 in each group). Instrumentation was performed using ProTaper Next, Fanta AF baby, and Kidzo Elephant files in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. During the instrumentation procedure, the irrigation of 2 mL of 1.5% sodium hypochlorite between each file was done, followed by 5 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid as a final irrigating solution. Cone-beam computed tomography images were obtained before and after instrumentation. Each group was evaluated for transportation and centring ratios. Results: On comparing all the tested groups within each root canal level canal transportation, the results revealed a statistically nonsignificant difference in the buccolingual direction (P > 0.05). Meanwhile, in the mesiodistal direction, group 1 showed a statistically highly significant difference compared to groups 2 and 3 at the cervical level (P < .01). However, in both middle and apical root canal levels, there was a statistically nonsignificant difference amongst all groups (P > 0.05). Regarding the centring ability comparison of the 3 groups within each root canal level, there was a statistically nonsignificant difference amongst all groups (P > 0.05) in both buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. Conclusions: The ProTaper Next regular rotary file and the paediatric rotary files showed no difference in canal transportation and centring ability in the buccolingual direction, while in the mesiodistal direction at the cervical root canal level, the ProTaper Next showed high transportation liability.