This case report presents the clinical use of a resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM restoration of a primary second molar without successor in the form of a permanent second premolar tooth in a patient. Three‐year follow‐up of the case revealed that resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM restoration of the primary molar without successor achieved both aesthetics and function. Despite the high cost of treatment, this type of restoration should be considered if the retained tooth is expected to maintain functionality over the long term.

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the wall adaptation and apical microleakage values following the application of various irrigation protocols in primary teeth. Material and methods: For the two parts of the study, extracted upper incisor primary teeth were randomly included to the 1% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 10% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)+1% NaOCl, 6% citric acid (CA)+1% NaOCl and 0.9% physiological saline (PS) groups. Canal wall adaptation and apical microleakage were assessed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and stereomicroscope, respectively. Results: 6% CA + 1% NaOCl group was found to be the most successful irrigation protocol in providing strong canal wall adaptation and less apical microleakage, followed by 10% EDTA +1% NaOCl. 6% CA +1% NaOCl was significantly superior regarding apical microleakage (p < .05). Conclusions: Due to the ability to provide appropriate changes in the root canal walls to make a well-adapted and leak-proof canal filling, 6% CA + 1% NaOCl can be recommended as an irrigation protocol in primary teeth.

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly integrated into healthcare communication, including dentistry. However, the extent to which they are

This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the effects of different cavity conditioners on internal adaptation (IA) of glass ionomer-based restorative materials applied to primary teeth. 80 extracted primary second molar teeth were randomly assigned to four different cavity conditioner groups [10% polyacrylic acid, 20% polyacrylic acid, 17% ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), 35% phosphoric acid]. Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces and relevant cavity conditioners were applied, and the samples in each cavity conditioner group were randomly assigned to glass hybrid (GHR) or conventional glass ionomer restoratives (CGIR). Subsequently, restorative materials were applied and all samples were thermocycled (5–55 °C, 5000 cycles) and IA were calculated volumetrically by using a Micro Computed Tomography (Micro-CT) system. IA values was recorded as % and data were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Statistical significance level was set as 5%. 35% phosphoric acid showed the lowest mean internal voids (between the cavity-restoration interface) for both restorative materials (for GHR = 0.180% and for CGIR = 0.936%). However, the highest mean internal voids for GHR and CGIR were observed after the use of 17% EDTA (2.438%) and 10% polyacrylic acid (8.483%), respectively. For both restorative materials, 20% polyacrylic acid showed the second lowest mean internal voids (for GHR = 0.321% and for CGIR = 3.580%), however, no significant difference was found between 35% phosphoric acid and 20% polyacrylic acid (p = 0.941 for GHR and p = 0.061 for CGIR). In the samples applied the cavity conditioners other than 17% EDTA, glass hybrid restoratives showed significantly higher IA quality than conventional glass ionomer (p = 0.0001 for 10% polyacrylic acid, p = 0.001 for 20% polyacrylic acid and p = 0.002 for 35% phosphoric acid). Within the limitations of this study, 35% phosphoric acid and 20% polyacrylic acid were determined to be the most successful cavity conditioners in terms of IA, and glass hybrid restorative system showed superior IA quality than conventional glass ionomer. Further studies are needed to confirm the present results.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 3-dimensional (3D) internal adaptation (IA) and fracture resistance (FR) of compomer and glass ionomers applied after conventional caries removal to sound dentin (CCRSD) and selective caries removal to firm dentin (SCRFD) in in-vitro. Methods: Thirty extracted primary molars were randomly assigned to three main groups (n = 10) as glass hybrid restorative (GHR) (Equia Forte^® HT), conventional glass ionomer (CGIR) (Voco Ionofil Molar) and compomer (Dyract XP). Each group was randomly divided into two subgroups according to caries removal technique as CCRSD (n = 5) and SCRFD (n = 5). The restoration procedures were completed after caries removal (CCRSD or SCRFD) in all samples. Then, specimens were subjected to IA and FR tests. Data were analyzed with Student’s t, one-way ANOVA, and Kruskal Wallis-H tests. The correlation between IA and FR results was analyzed with a Pearson test. The statistical significance level was considered as 5%. Results: While CCRSD showed superior IA results than SCRFD for all restorative materials (p < 0.05), no statistical difference was found between CCRSD and SCRFD in FR assessment (p > 0.05). In CCRSD, compomer showed superior results for IA and FR than glass ionomers (p < 0.05). In SCRFD, it was found no significant difference between the restoratives for IA (p > 0.05). However, compomer showed superior FR results than glass ionomers (p < 0.05). There was moderate negative correlation between internal voids and FR without statistically significant difference (r = −0.333, p = 0.072). Conclusions: Despite the advantages of SCRFD, it was found to be less superior than CCRSD in IA assessment. Therefore, when SCRFD is preferred, a peripheral seal should be provided for ideal restorative treatment. On the other hand, compomer mostly showed superior results compared to others.