In this study, 48 patients were divided into five groups. A half-mouth design was conducted to compare two in-office bleaching techniques (with and without light activation): G1: 35% hydrogen peroxide (HP) (Lase Peroxide - DMC Equipments, São Carlos, SP, Brazil) + hybrid light (HL) (LED/Diode Laser, Whitening Lase II DMC Equipments, São Carlos, SP, Brazil); G2: 35% HP; G3: 38% HP (X-traBoost - Ultradent, South Jordan UT, USA) + HL; G4: 38% HP; and G5: 15% carbamide peroxide (CP) (Opalescence PF - Ultradent, South Jordan UT, USA). For G1 and G3, HP was applied on the enamel surface for 3 consecutive applications activated by HL. Each application included 3x3' HL activations with 1' between each interval; for G2 and G4, HP was applied 3x15' with 15' between intervals; and for G5, 15% CP was applied for 120'/10 days at home. A spectrophotometer was used to measure color change before the treatment and after 24 h, 1 week, 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. A VAS questionnaire was used to evaluate tooth sensitivity before the treatment, immediately following treatment, 24 h after and finally 1 week after. Statistical analysis did not reveal any significant differences between in-office bleaching with or without HL activation related to effectiveness; nevertheless the time required was less with HL. Statistical differences were observed between the results after 24 h, 1 week and 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months (intergroup). Immediately, in-office bleaching increased tooth sensitivity. The groups activated with HL required less application time with gel. All techniques and bleaching agents used were effective and demonstrated similar behaviors.

The present in vitro study assessed the polymerization shrinkage/PS, Knoop microhardness/KHN and depth of cure/DC of 9 different resin composites : Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable (FBF), Surefill SDR flow (SDR), Xtra Base (XB), Filtek Z350XT Flowable (Z3F), Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (FBP), Xtra Fill (SF), Tetric Evo Ceram Bulk Fill (TBF), Admira Fusion Xtra (ADM), and Filtek Z350XT (Z3XT). PS was assessed with a µ-CT machine, scanning 64 mm3 samples (n=8) before and after 20 s curing. KHN and DC were performed with a microhardness tester (n=8 for each group) right after 20 s light curing, with 3 readings per depth at every 0.5 mm. Low viscosity resin composites showed lower KHN values when compared with high viscosity resins. Z3XT showed the highest microhardness among the tested resin composites. Z3XT and Z3F showed lower DC when compared with bulk fill resin composites. All bulk fill resin composites presented depth of cure higher than 4.5 mm and similar or lower PS than conventional resin composites.

Nanofilled composite resins are claimed to provide superior mechanical properties compared with microhybrid resins. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare nanofilled with microhybrid composite resins. The null hypothesis was that the size and the distribution of fillers do not influence the mechanical properties of surface roughness and wear after simulated toothbrushing test. Ten rectangular specimens (15 mm x 5 mm x 4 mm) of Filtek Z250 (FZ2), Admira (A), TPH3 (T),Esthet-X (EX), estelite sigma (ES), concept advanced (C), Grandio (G) and Filtek Z350 (F) were prepared according to manufacturer's instructions. Half of each top surface was protected with nail polish as control surface (not brushed) while the other half was assessed with five random readings using a roughness tester (Ra). Following, the specimens were abraded by simulated toothbrushing with soft toothbrushes and slurry comprised of 2:1 water and dentifrice (w/w). 100,000 strokes were performed and the brushed surfaces were reanalyzed. Nail polish layers were removed from the specimens so that the roughness (Ra) and the wear could be assessed with three random readings (µm). Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's multiple-comparison test (α=0.05). Overall outcomes indicated that composite resins showed a significant increase in roughness after simulated toothbrushing, except for Grandio, which presented a smoother surface. Generally, wear of nanofilled resins was significantly lower compared with microhybrid resins. As restorative materials suffer alterations under mechanical challenges, such as toothbrushing, the use of nanofilled materials seem to be more resistant than microhybrid composite resins, being less prone to be rougher and worn.

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.