To evaluate the effect of different surface treatment protocols on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of bulk-fill resin composite repairs. Thirty-five bulk-fill resin composite samples (Filtek Bulk Fill) were prepared (5 × 5 × 5 mm) and aged by thermocycling (X5000). Samples were randomly divided into five groups (n = 7): a control (no treatment) and four surface treatment groups (Single Bond Universal [SBU]; phosphoric acid (37%) + SBU; Er,Cr:YSGG laser + SBU; aluminum oxide sandblasting + SBU). Filtek Ultimate Universal composite was used as a repair material. After storage for 24 h in distilled water (37 °C), sticks were obtained and subjected to a μTBS test. The data (MPa) were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with a post hoc test (α = 0.05). Failure mode was evaluated using a light microscope (10×). There were significant differences between the groups (p < 0.05). The lowest bond strength values were obtained in the control group (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between Group II (universal adhesive) and Group III (acid etch + universal adhesive) (p > 0.05). The bond strength of Group II was significantly lower than that of the other surface treatment groups (p < 0.05). While Group III showed significantly lower values than those of the laser treatment group (Group IV), similar values were obtained with Al₂O₃ sandblasting group (Group V). The highest repair bond strength was obtained in Group IV (p < 0.05) which was not significantly different from the Al₂O₃ sandblasting group (p > 0.05). The predominant failure mode was adhesive. Treatment of aged bulk-fill resin composite surfaces with laser and Al₂O₃ sandblasting provided higher repair bond strength values.

The antibacterial activity, and the effect of the application of additional topical fluoride on the bacterial activity, biofilm formation, and surface roughness of new-generation hybrid/fluoride-releasing materials were investigated. Two hundred and forty specimens were prepared in split Teflon molds (8 × 2 mm) from a resin composite (as negative control: G-aenial A’Chord/GC), Equia Forte HT Fil(GC), Equia Forte HT Fil+Equia Forte Coat, Riva Self-Cure (SDI), Riva Self-Cure+Equia Forte Coat, Zirconomer (Shofu), Beautifil II (Shofu), and Riva Silver (Shofu). Penicillin G,1U was used as positive control. The antibacterial activity was evaluated by the agar diffusion test immediately after the materials set using Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacillus casei (L. casei), and repeated after application of 0.20% w/w (900 ppm) topical fluoride. The biofilm formation of S. mutans on each material was quantified by crystal violet staining. Surface roughness of the specimens was measured by a profilometer. The data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis, Dunn’s, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey’s HSD tests (p < 0.05). None of the tested restorative materials showed antibacterial activity and no inhibition zones were observed after treatment of the restoratives with additional topical fluoride. There were significant differences among the groups in terms of biofilm formation (p < 0.005). Equia Forte HT Fil with and without coating showed the lowest, while Riva self-cure without coating and Zirconomer showed the highest biofilm accumulation. None of the new-generation hybrid/fluoride-releasing materials demonstrated antibacterial activity and additional topical fluoride application did not make any change. Biofilm formation of the tested materials differed. All tested materials showed different surface roughness values (p < 0.005). Characteristics and compositions of the materials seemed to be more effective than the surface roughness.

Pared to assess oral healthcare and consumption of erosive food and drinks. All participants completed the diet analysis forms. Saliva characteristics were evaluated with GC Saliva-Check BUFFER test. Examiners measured the TW of case patients, using the TW index. Data were statistically analyzed using Chi-square and Mann–Whitney U-tests (P < 0.05). Results: Individuals in the case group brush their teeth more often (P < 0.05). The difference in erosive food consumption between the case and control groups was significant (P < 0.05). There was no erosive effect of acidic food when consumed as a main meal or a snack (P > 0.05). Although there was no difference between stimulated saliva flow rate and buffering capacity between groups, the difference between the resting saliva flow rates and pH values was significant (P < 0.05). Although some wear was seen on buccal/labial surfaces of teeth, cervical and occlusal/incisal surfaces were scored higher. No TW was observed on palatal/lingual surfaces. The cervical surfaces of mandibular premolars and incisal surfaces of anterior teeth were most affected. Conclusion: Of the factors investigated, TW in the case group was correlated with consumption of acidic foods, lower salivary flow rate, and pH....