Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate oral health knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among a sample of senior students at King Abdulaziz University (KAU), and to assess differences among these factors between genders. Methods: A total of 1177 senior university students at KAU were included in this cross-sectional study. Participants were selected by stratified random sampling. KAU has three main streams categorized by field of study. One faculty was randomly selected from each stream. Information regarding oral health knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors was collected with a validated self-administered questionnaire. A knowledge score was calculated, and predictors of oral health knowledge were assessed by linear regression. Results: In general, the mean oral health knowledge score of females (8.1 ± 1.8) was significantly higher than that of males (7.2 ± 2.1) out of 13. Relative to males, females reported a greater frequency of teeth cleaning and of using a toothbrush with proper technique (p < 0.001). Females were also more likely to have ever visited a dentist than males (95% and 86%, respectively). The linear regression model revealed that students in non-medical faculties and those who were not shown how to brush their teeth by a dentist had lower oral health knowledge scores, than their counterparts. Students older than 22 years and females were more likely to have higher oral health knowledge scores than were their counterparts. Conclusion: Oral health knowledge was relatively low among the university students, but females showed better oral health knowledge and behaviors than males did.

Background: This study aims to compare the compressive strength and microhardness of four tooth-colored restorative materials: bulk fill glass hybrid (GH), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC), conventional glass ionomer (CGIC), and resin-based composite (RBC). Methods: Stainless steel molds were used to prepare 20 specimens for each material. Half of the specimens were subjected to 10,000 thermal cycles; the materials were subjected to compressive strength and microhardness tests. Mean values were statistically compared using a one-way ANOVA Test and Bonferroni pairwise comparisons. Results: GH (147.03 ± 20.19 MPa) had lower compressive strength than RBC (264.82 ± 30.95 MPa) but showed no significant difference with CGIC (130.19 ± 30.38 MPa) and RMGIC (183.52 ± 18.45 MPa). RMGIC’s compressive strength also significantly fell short of RBC (p < 0.05), but it significantly increased after thermocycling (160.14 to 183.52 MPa). As for microhardness, no significant difference was found between the groups. Thermocycling significantly increased the microhardness of CGIC (from 24.27 to 31.8 ± 2.66). Conclusion: Resin-based materials outperformed the other materials. Glass hybrid restorative material performed as well as resin-modified glass ionomer regarding compressive strength; however, further studies are necessary before considering glass hybrids for use as a permanent restoration.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the mechanical properties (flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), Vickers microhardness (VMN), and shear bond strength (SBS)) of preheated composites. Two preheated composites (Z350XT and Proclinic) and one self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX™ U200) were used to fabricate specimens. All the specimens were subjected to thermocycling before their mechanical properties were evaluated. One-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis, followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. The chi-square test was used to evaluate the failure modes after SBS test. Results: RelyX™ U200 had a significantly higher FS (106.22 ± 14.23 MPa) than Proclinic (85.76 ± 12.75 MPa) and Z350 (71.47 ± 22.98 MPa). Z350 (118.10 ± 11.3 GPa) and RelyX™ U200 (110.88 ± 13.44 GPa) had significantly higher FMs than Proclinic (83.72 ± 9.3 GPa). A significantly higher VHN was seen with Z350 (136.84 ± 11.52 VHN) compared to Proclinic (115.25 ± 17.15 VHN) and RelyX™ U200 (100.83 ± 12.69 VHN). Z350 had a higher SBS (20.75 ± 5.6 MPa) than RelyX™ U200 (15.4 ± 3.46 MPa), while Proclinic was the weakest among all the groups (6.76 ± 1.44 MPa). In the failure mode analysis, the mixed failure mode was predominantly seen in all groups. In conclusion, not all preheated composites behave the same and it is the clinician’s responsibility to select the appropriate material for every clinical situation.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the intra- and inter-grader reliability of four evaluators using three different digital intraoral scanners and visual methods for typodontic Class II composite preparations. Materials and methods Ninety-five typodont teeth of Class II composite preparations were evaluated using traditional visual grading methods (VGM) and digital grading methods (DGM) using the same rubric. Three intraoral scanners were used to scan the Class II cavity preparation for the composite: i700 (Medit, Korea), Trios 4 (3Shape, Denmark), and Shinning 3D (Shinning 3D, China). The same rubric was used to score the visual and digital evaluations by calibrated examiners. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare method- and evaluator-based scores, accounting for the scanner type used. Results: The scores of the prepped typodont teeth were subjected to an interaction between the examiner and the evaluation technique. In addition, the mean total prepped teeth scores differed between examiners using VGM. A statistically significant interaction emerged between examiners and the evaluation technique employed to assess the total score of the prepped teeth: F(9, 1504) = 3.893, P = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.023. The total prepped tooth score differed between the VGM and DGM groups. Lower (P < 0.05) intra-grader consistency was observed for the final scores when Class II preparations were evaluated using the VGM; however, this consistency improved when using the DGM. Conclusion: Examiners and evaluation methods affect student performance in Class II cavity preparations. The DGM may be more reliable and consistent within and between evaluators than the VGM is.

Objective: Several studies have compared the accuracy of digital scans and conventional impressions for post space capture. However, only a few have specifically investigated the precision of intraoral scanners in measuring post spaces of varied lengths. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of various intraoral scanning techniques in capturing long and short post spaces. Material and Methods: This study grouped samples into eight categories based on four techniques and two post space depths (7 and 11 mm). After tooth preparation, root canal treatment, and post space preparation, laboratory scans were performed using Duralay. Intraoral scans were obtained directly and indirectly with the Trios fourth generation scanner using the Duralay and PVS techniques. The accuracies, in terms of trueness, and precisions were compared after ten repetitions for each group using the Kruskal–Wallis or Mann–Whitney U tests. Results: The Duralay Intraoral Scan groups demonstrated a high consistency, while the Direct Intraoral Scan groups showed moderate consistency. Variability was higher for the Duralay Lab Scan and PVS Intraoral Scan groups for short post spaces. Conclusions: The capture technique significantly affected the accuracies of the post space measurements. The techniques also demonstrated varying consistency and precision. These findings provide critical insights to guide their selections for clinical and research applications. Clinical Significance: This study is one of the few to compare the accuracy of intraoral scanners for the capture of both short and long post spaces. It addresses a key gap in current dental research and offers practical guidance for clinicians and researchers in selecting appropriate scanning techniques for various clinical scenarios. The findings have the potential to enhance the accuracy and reliability of post space measurements and improve patient outcomes.