The goal of this article was to assess the effect of modified triple-layer application (MTLA) in conjunction with the active bonding technique on the bond strength of four adhesive systems to dentinal substrate. The adhesives tested were Prime&Bond Universal (PBU), OptiBond Universal (OBU), OptiBond FL (OBFL), and Clearfil SE (CSE). The adhesives were applied according to the following strategies: single active application (A) and triple adhesive layer application including Active–Passive–Passive (APP); AAP; and AAA. The micro-tensile bond strength test was evaluated following 24 h or 6 months of storage. The composite–dentin interface morphology was investigated using scanning electron microscopy. The data were statistically analyzed with a significance level of α = 0.05. At 24 h of aging, all of the factors tested were not significant (p > 0.05) for CSE. For OBFL, OBU, and PBU, statistically higher values were observed for the A technique (p < 0.05). Plus, there were no significant variances between the APP, AAP, and AAA techniques (p > 0.05) for OBFL and PBU. However, for OBU, there were no significant differences between the A and AAA techniques (p > 0.05). After 6 months of aging, the A technique showed statistically higher values when compared to the other techniques (p < 0.01), except for OBFL, where the A and AAA techniques showed promising outcomes. When comparing the bond strength values of 24 h and 6 months, only for PBU, all of the techniques used resulted in bond strength stability over time (p > 0.05). Thicker adhesive layers were observed when MTLA was applied. Only the OBFL adhesive showed the formation of resin tags in all of the modalities tested. The bonding performances of the different application techniques used were material-dependent.

Background: Digital dental photography is increasingly essential for documentation and smile design. This study aimed to compare the linear measurement accuracy of various smartphones and a Digital Single-Lens Reflex (DSLR) camera against digital models obtained by intraoral and desktop scanners. Methods: Tooth height and width from six different casts were measured and compared using images acquired with a Canon EOS 250D DSLR, six smartphone models (iPhone 13, iPhone 15, Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy S24, and Vivo T2), and digital scans obtained from the Helios 500 intraoral scanner and the Ceramill Map 600 desktop scanner. All image measurements were performed using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA), and statistical analysis was conducted using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc test (α = 0.05). Results: The results showed no significant differences in measurements across most imaging methods (p > 0.05), except for the Vivo T2, which showed a significant deviation (p < 0.05). The other smartphones produced measurements comparable to those of the DSLR, even at distances as close as 16 cm. Conclusions: These findings preliminary support the clinical use of smartphones for accurate dental documentation and two-dimensional smile design, including the posterior areas, and challenge the previously recommended 24 cm minimum distance for mobile dental photography (MDP). This provides clinicians with a simplified and accessible alternative for high-accuracy dental imaging, advancing the everyday use of MDP in clinical practice.

The authors would like to make the following corrections to the published paper