Bulk-fill composites were introduced in dentistry to accelerate clinical procedures while providing adequate outcomes. Concerns regarding the use of bigger composite increments rely on the polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress, which may generate gaps on the adhesive interface and result in a reduced success rate. Objective: To evaluate the polymerization shrinkage stress of different bulk-fill resin composites and their elastic modulus. Materials and Methods: Fourteen specimens were made for each of the nine different resin composites (seven with 12 mm³ and seven with 24 mm³): Surefill SDR flow (SDR), X-tra Base (XB), Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable (FBF), Filtek Z350XT Flow (Z3F); Tetric Evo Ceram Bulk Fill (TBF), X-tra Fil (XF), Filtek Bulk Fill (FBP), Admira Xtra Fusion (ADM) and Filtek Z350 XT (Z3XT). Linear shrinkage stress was evaluated for 300 s with the aid of a linear shrinkage device adapted to a Universal Testing Machine. For each composite group, seven additional specimens (2x2x25 mm) were made and Young's modulus was evaluated with a 3-point bending device adapted in a Universal Testing Machine with 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed and 50 KgF loading cell. Results: For 12 mm³ specimens, three-way ANOVA showed that only SDR and TBF generated lower stress after 20 s. Considering 300 s, TBF, SDR, and XF generated the lowest stress, followed by ADM, FBP, XB, and FBF, which were similar to Z3XT. Z3F generated the highest stress values for all time points. Considering 24 mm³ specimens after 20 s, all bulk fill composites generated lower stress than Z3XT, except XB. After 300 s, SDR, FBP, and ADM generated the lowest stress, followed by TBF and XF. For elastic modulus, one-way ANOVA showed that FBF, SDR, Z3F, and ADM presented the lowest values, followed by XB and TBF. FBP, Z3XT, and XF presented the highest elastic modulus among the evaluated composites. Conclusions: Bulk-fill resin composites presented equal to lower shrinkage stress generation when compared to conventional composites, especially when bigger increments were evaluated. Bulk-fill composites showed a wide range of elastic modulus values, but usually similar to “regular” composites.

The objective of this systematic review was to determine the influence of surface treatment of glass fiber posts on bond strength to dentine. Laboratory studies were searched in MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Web of Science search engine. All authors interdependently screened all identified articles for eligibility. The included studies were assessed for bias. Because of the considerable heterogeneity of the studies, a meta-analysis was not possible. Twelve articles were found eligible and included in the review. An assessment of the risk of bias in the included studies provided a result that classified the studies as low, medium, and high risk of bias. The available evidence indicated that the coronal region of the root canal bonded better to the glass fiber post than apical regions. Phosphoric acid, hydrogen peroxide, and silane application enhance post’s retentiveness. In light of the current evidence, surface treatment strategies increase the bond strength of glass fiber post to dentine. However, recommendations for standardized testing methods and reporting of future clinical studies are required to maintain clinically relevant information and to understand the effects of various surface treatment of glass fiber post and their bond strength with dentine walls of the root canal.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the machinability of four CAD/CAM materials (n = 13) assessed by brittleness index, Vickers hardness, and fracture toughness and interaction among such mechanical properties. The materials selected in this in vitro study are Feldspathic ceramic [FC], Lithium-disilicate glass ceramic [LD], leucite-reinforced glass ceramic [LR], and nanofilled resin material [RN]. Slices were made from the blocks following original dimensions 14 × 12 × 3 mm (L × W × H), using a precision slow-speed saw device and then surfaces were regularized through a polishing device. Brittleness index and fracture toughness were calculated by the use of specific equations for each one of the properties. The Vickers hardness was calculated automated software in the microhardness device. One-way Anova and Pearson's correlation were applied to data evaluation. LD obtained the highest values for brittleness index and was not significantly different from FC. LR presented statistically significant difference compared with RN, which had the lowest mean. Vickers hardness showed LD with the highest average, and no statistical difference was found between FC and LR. RN presented the lowest average. Fracture toughness showed FC and LR not statistically different from each other, likewise LD and RN. The brittleness index, considered also as the machinability of a material, showed within this study as positively dependent on Vickers hardness, which leads to conclusion that hardness of ceramics is related to its milling capacity. In addition, fracture toughness of pre-sintered ceramics is compared to polymer-based materials.

Two 3D-printed crown materials (Crown and Ceramic Crown) were examined to determine the best surface treatment and primers for bonding. Discs of the two materials were printed and mounted with their “intaglio” surfaces untouched. Half the specimens from each group were sandblasted with 50 µm alumina. Then, specimens were divided into four groups (n = 10): Gr1—no further treatment; Gr2—one coat of silane; Gr3—one coat of universal adhesive; Gr4—one coat of silane, then one coat of universal adhesive. Bond strength specimens were prepared with an Ultradent shear bond strength apparatus using Filtek Supreme composite. Specimens were stored for 8 weeks in 37 °C water. The specimens were debonded with a circular notched-edge blade applied at 1 mm/min, and the shear bond strength was calculated. The data were compared with a two-way ANOVA (factors: surface treatment and primer) and a Tukey post hoc analysis for both materials independently, with p < 0.01 considered meaningful. The filler content (burned ash) and resin content (FTIR) of the materials were determined. For both materials, factors surface treatment and primer were significant (p < 0.01), but their interaction was not (p = 0.43 for Crown and p = 0.34 for Ceramic Crown). Alumina air particle abrasion improved the bond strength for both materials. The Tukey post hoc analysis grouped primer treatments into the same statistically different groups for both materials: Gr1 and Gr2 < Gr3 and Gr4. The filler percentage of Crown was 32.7% and Ceramic Crown was 48.2%. Resin content was similar for both materials. The most effective method to bond to 3D-printed crowns (regardless of filler percentage) was to sandblast with 50 µm alumina and apply a layer of adhesive (with or without previous application of silane).