The purpose of this study was to compare two impression techniques from the perspective of patient preferences and treatment comfort.

Şişmanoğlu S, et al. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020 Feb;12(1):22-32. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.1.22

Aims: The aim of this study was conducting a survey of hygiene habits and use of removable partial dentures (RPDs) and correlate them with the social conditions of the interviewees. Methods: A total of 145 RPD wearers were interviewed by experienced clinical staff using a structured questionnaire. A Chi-squared test was performed to evaluate statistical significance between the variables, and the level of significance was P < 0.05. Results: A total of 72 (49%) patients reported that they had not been well informed by the dentists. Brushing was the most frequent cleaning method (57.6%). 77 (53.1%) patients did not take off their dentures at night. The frequency of cleaning dentures and using cleansing tablet was significantly higher in females than in males (P < 0.05). The frequency of denture cleaning, cleaned parts of denture, use of cleansing tablet, removal of dentures at night, frequency of tooth brushing, does not show any significant difference according to age, educational status or duration of denture usage (P > 0.05). RPD wearers did not clean their dentures and natural teeth satisfactorily and had limited knowledge of denture cleansing and oral hygiene maintenance. Conclusions: Hygiene habits and attitudes may be affected by gender, but education level and hygiene attitudes may not always present positive correlation. Dentists should thoroughly inform patients about the harmful effects of overnight wearing and motivate to clean metal parts of RPD's and cleansing tablet use in order to minimize the abrasive effect of widely preferred cleaning method of brushing with toothpaste.

Objective: To specify the effects of self‐etching ceramic primer, Monobond Etch and Prime (MEP), and universal adhesive (UA) on repair bond strength between CAD/CAM blocks and resin composite.Materials and Methods: Vita Mark II (VM), IPS e.max CAD (EMAX), Shofu Block HC (SHC), and Tetric CAD (TET) blocks were sliced and thermocycled. They were divided into four groups according to surface treatments (n = 24): control, sandblasting (AL), hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), and MEP application. SEM analysis assessed surface topography. Subdivided, specimens followed distinct adhesive protocols (n = 12): control (silane + adhesive [SA] or adhesive [A] only for MEP group) and UA. Microshear bond strength (μSBS) was measured following resin composite repair. Data were analyzed using two‐way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05).Results: The μSBS of CAD/CAM blocks was significantly influenced by surface treatment type and adhesive protocol. The highest μSBS values for each block, considering surface treatment + adhesive protocol, were VM, HF + SA, or HF + UA; EMAX, MEP + A; and SHC and TET, AL + SA, or AL + UA.Conclusions: Except for EMAX, it was not the adhesive protocol that made the significant difference in bond strength for each CAD/CAM block, but the surface treatment. MEP + UA application on glass ceramics lowered μSBS values significantly, so it is not recommended in clinical conditions.Clinical Significance: Repair is an essential therapeutic option, particularly in esthetic restorations, to swiftly repair the impaired esthetics caused by fracture. Repair protocol is dependent on the restorative material, and to have a reliable repair bond strength, the following surface treatment and adhesive protocol combinations are recommended for each CAD/CAM block: VM, HF + SA, or HF + UA; EMAX, MEP + A; and SHC and TET, AL + SA, or AL + UA.

The objective of this in vitro study was to investigate the effect of material type, resin cement type, surface treatment, and aging on the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of self-adhesive resin cements (SARCs) to CAD/CAM blocks. CAD/CAM blocks (CeraSmart, CS; Lava Ultimate, LU; Shofu Block HC, HC; Vita Enamic, VE; Vitablocks Mark II, VM) were cut into 3-mm thick slices (96 specimens for each) and divided into groups: no treatment; 9% hydrofluoric acid etching; aluminum-oxide sandblasting; CoJet sandblasting. Following, the specimens were divided into three subgroups according to SARCs applied. Each specimen received four resin cement microtubules (n = 32 per subgroup). After 24 h, the cylinders of SARC were equally assigned into two groups (n = 16): immediate µSBS testing and µSBS testing after thermocycling. A shear force was applied to the adhesive interface through a μSBS testing device. Additionally, specimens were analyzed with a contact profilometer and were evaluated with scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed using four-way ANOVA, p < 0.05. Material type, resin cement type, surface treatment, and aging influenced the µSBS values (p < 0.001). A significant decrease in µSBS was recorded for all groups after thermocycling. The most common failure mode was detected as an adhesive failure. The surface treatment and material type influenced the surface roughness with a significant interaction. Sandblasting was more successful for CS, LU, and HC, while HF etching was better for VE and VM. The use of MDP-containing SARCs would be advantageous for the zirconia-containing CAD/CAM materials (LU and HC).

Ensuring optimum bond strength during cementation is vital for restoration success, with the practicality of the process being crucial in clinical practice. This study analyzed the effect of a single-step self-etching ceramic primer (MEP) and various surface treatments on the microshear bond strength (µSBS) between resin cement and glass-ceramic or polymer-based ceramic CAD/CAM materials. Specimens were fabricated from leucite-based glass-ceramic (LEU), lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDC), resin nanoceramic (RNC), and polymer infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) (n = 160). They were then classified based on the surface treatments (n = 10): control (no treatment); sandblasting with Al₂O₃ (AL); etching with hydrofluoric acid (HF); and MEP application. Scanning electron microscopy was used to evaluate the surface topography. µSBS was measured after cementation and thermocycling procedures. Failure modes were examined with a stereomicroscope. Statistical analysis involved two-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD tests with a significance level of 0.05. µSBS was significantly influenced by both surface treatment and CAD/CAM material type. The most enhanced µSBS values for each material, regarding the surface treatment, were: LEU and LDC, HF; RNC, AL; PICN, AL or HF. MEP significantly increased the µSBS values of CAD/CAM materials except RNC, yet it did not yield the highest µSBS values for any of them.