Tooth wear is a general term describing the loss of dental hard tissues from the surfaces of the teeth. As the lifespan of individuals increase and the teeth are increasingly retained for life the incidence of non-carious tooth surface loss has also shown a rise. Little is understood about the aetiology and management of these lesions and there are several occasions where the condition is often neglected. The prevalence of tooth surface loss is difficult to establish and the reported clinical and epidemiological data are difficult to compare, due to differences in terminologies and many indices involved. The purpose of current review is to focus on the classification, aetiology and management of common non-carious conditions causing tooth surface loss.

[ABSTRACT]  [FULL TEXT]  [PDF]  [Mobile Full text]  [EPub] [CITATIONS]

Aim: To compare the removal efficiency of calcium hydroxide (CH) medicament from the root canal walls with different irrigation/agitation methods. Materials and Methods: Forty human mandibular premolars were selected. Root canals of these teeth were prepared up to F4 file using ProTaper rotary system and then filled with CH. All root specimens were stored at 37΀C and 100% relative humidity for 7 days. Teeth were randomly divided into four different groups (n = 10). For the removal of the medicaments from the canal walls, roots were subjected to the final irrigation/agitation methods used as follows: Conventional syringe irrigation with side-vented needle (Group 1), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI; Group 2), manual dynamic agitation (Group 3), and apical negative pressure irrigation (Group 4). The negative control did not receive CH placement. The positive control received the intracanal medication, but no subsequent removal. Roots were split longitudinally into two halves. Digital images of the root canal walls were acquired by a digital camera and assessed for residual amount of medicament. Cervical, middle, and apical third of each canal was assessed by using a scoring system. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's multiple comparison tests, at 95% confidence interval (P < 0.05). Results: There were no statistically significant differences between all experimental groups and the negative group in each canal third (P > 0.05). However, there were statistically significant differences between the experimental groups and the positive control (P < 0.05). None of the experimental groups totally removed CH medicaments from root canal walls. Conclusions: In the limitations of this in vitro study, all experimental groups produced similar removal efficiency in terms of canal cleanliness.

[ABSTRACT]  [FULL TEXT]  [PDF]  [Mobile Full text]  [EPub]

Purpose: Present study investigated microtensile bond strengths (μTBS) of four one-step self-etch dental adhesive systems, two two-step self-etch adhesive systems and one three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system to pulp chamber dentin. Materials and Methods: The μTBS of seven current adhesives, including one three-step etch-and-rinse (Optibond FL, Kerr, USA), two two-step self-etch (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray, Japan; AdheSE, Ivoclar, Liechtenstein) and four one-step self-etch adhesives (Clearfil S3 Bond, Kuraray, Japan; Optibond all-in-one, Kerr, USA; iBond, Heraeus Kulzer, Germany; L-POP, 3M ESPE, Germany) were determined. Adhesives were applied to pulp chamber dentin according to their respective manufacturer's instructions, then μTBS tests were performed. Results: μTBS varied from 29.99 ± 7.82 to 38.15 ± 10.38 MPa. Highest μTBS mean was obtained with Optibond FL and lowest iBond, Heraeus Kulzer, Germany. There were no significant differences among all adhesives. Conclusion: Bonding effectiveness of one-step self-etch adhesive systems to pulp chamber dentin was comparable to two-step self-etch and three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive systems.

[ABSTRACT]  [FULL TEXT]  [PDF]  [Mobile Full text]  [EPub] [CITATIONS]

[FULL TEXT]  [PDF]  [Mobile Full text]  [EPub]

Clinical trials are considered as a gold standard for assessing bonding effectiveness of adhesive materials. However, clinical trials with long evaluation periods (5 years or more) are necessary to discriminate significant differences within the clinical performances of current improved adhesive materials. The present short communication discusses this issue and possible alternatives.

[ABSTRACT]  [FULL TEXT]  [PDF]  [Mobile Full text]  [EPub] [CITATIONS]