At present, provisional restorative materials are widely used for both short- and long-term treatment purposes. In esthetic dentistry, for the simulation of natural teeth, fluorescence plays a crucial role in enhancing the elegant, vibrant, and life-like appearance of restorative teeth, making them more closely resemble natural teeth. To achieve ideal esthetic outcomes, restorative materials must replicate the characteristics of natural teeth to provide the most realistic appearance possible. Thus, this study aims to compare the color difference in fluorescence (∆E₀₀) between a normal bovine tooth and eight provisional restorative materials under ultraviolet radiation. Eight provisional restorative materials were fabricated, for a total of 80 specimens (size 13.0 mm × 8.0 mm × 1.0 mm). A sound bovine tooth incisor was collected and used as a control for both enamel and dentine conditions. The color difference in fluorescence (∆E₀₀) was assessed using a spectrophotometer. A one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p < 0.05) were used to analyze the resulting data. The results revealed that the color difference in fluorescence (∆E₀₀) between the normal bovine tooth and eight provisional restorative materials used in this study was higher than the 50% acceptability threshold, indicating a clear mismatch between the fluorescence of the materials and that of the normal bovine tooth. Unifast Trad had the lowest ∆E₀₀ among the provisional restorative materials, while Luxatemp Fluorescence had the highest color difference in fluorescence (∆E₀₀). The color difference in fluorescence (∆E₀₀) between Unifast Trad and Luxatemp Fluorescence is statistically significant. However, no significant difference was observed between Temporary CB, Vipi Block Trilux, and Protemp 4, or between Luxatemp Star and Luxatemp Fluorescence. It can thus be concluded that the ∆E₀₀ mostly differs among the different materials. Luxatemp Star and Luxatemp Fluorescence exhibited the highest ∆E₀₀ by a significant margin compared to the other groups.

Objectives: This study evaluated the ability of calcium silicate cement (CSC) as a remineralizing agent compared with conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) to remineralize artificial caries-affected dentin.Methods: Twenty-five class V cavities were prepared on extracted human third molars. Twenty teeth underwent artificial caries induction. The remaining five teeth with sound dentin serve as the positive control. The twenty demineralized teeth were subdivided into four groups (n = 5): carious dentin without restoration (negative control [NC]), carious dentin restored with CSC (Biodentine, Septodont), carious dentin restored with GI (Fuji IX, GC Corporation), and carious dentin restored with RMGIC (Fuji II LC, GC Corporation). Following restoration, the specimens were stored in artificial saliva for 7 days. The elastic modulus was evaluated by a nanoindentation test. The mineral composition was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy-energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDX), and the mineral composition at the dentin-material interface.Results: CSC had a higher modulus of elasticity compared to GI, RMGI, and NC groups (p < 0.05). Higher calcium and phosphorus content was observed under CSC restorations, as indicated by SEM-EDX examination, which may lead to better remineralization.Conclusions: Compared to GI and RMGI, CSC showed the best remineralization and mechanical reinforcement in caries-affected dentin, indicating CSC for use in minimally invasive restorative dentistry.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the masking ability of different thicknesses of advanced lithium disilicate (ALDS) ceramic used for implant-supported crowns compared to conventional lithium disilicate (LDS) and to assess the influence of their combination with various implant abutment materials. Methods: Two types of high-translucency computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) glass–ceramics in shade A2 were tested: IPS e.max CAD (LDS) and CEREC Tessera (ALDS). Each material was sectioned into four thicknesses (n = 8 per group). Four implant abutments were evaluated: titanium (Ti), yellow-anodized titanium (TiY), pink-anodized titanium (TiP), and white zirconia (Zir). The translucency parameter (TP₀₀) and color difference (ΔE₀₀) between the glass–ceramic and abutment were calculated using the CIEDE2000 formula. Results: Significant differences were observed between 1.0 mm and 2.5 mm thicknesses in all groups except for ALDS on TiY. Both glass–ceramics on TiY and TiP showed lower ΔE00 values than those on Ti, except for 2.0 mm and 2.5 mm ALDS. Additionally, their ΔE00 values were lower than those on Zir. Clinically acceptable ΔE₀₀ values occurred for 2.5 mm LDS on TiP, 2.0 mm ALDS on TiY and TiP, and 2.5 mm ALDS on TiY and TiP. ALDS demonstrated lower TP₀₀ values than LDS at corresponding thicknesses. Conclusions: Greater restoration thickness and titanium anodization improved color masking. Anodized titanium enhanced the glass–ceramic masking ability. ALDS at 2.0–2.5 mm on TiY or TiP and 2.5 mm LDS on TiP achieved clinically acceptable masking, with ALDS showing lower translucency than LDS.