It was the aim of this study to evaluate the effect of cooling water temperature on the temperature changes in the pulp chamber and at the handpiece head during high-speed tooth preparation using an electric handpiece.

Twenty-eight intact human molars received a standardized occlusal preparation for 60 seconds using a diamond bur in an electric handpiece, and one of four treatments were applied that varied in the temperature of cooling water applied (control, with no cooling water, 10°C, 23°C, and 35°C). The temperature changes in the pulp chamber and at the handpiece head were recorded using K-type thermocouples connected to a digital thermometer.

The average temperature changes within the pulp chamber and at the handpiece head during preparation increased substantially when no cooling water was applied (6.8°C and 11.0°C, respectively), but decreased significantly when cooling water was added. The most substantial drop in temperature occurred with 10°C water (−16.3°C and −10.2ºC), but reductions were also seen at 23°C (−8.6°C and −4.9°C). With 35°C cooling water, temperatures increased slightly, but still remained lower than the no cooling water group (1.6°C and 6.7ºC).

The temperature changes in the pulp chamber and at the handpiece head were above harmful thresholds when tooth preparation was performed without cooling water. However, cooling water of all temperatures prevented harmful critical temperature changes even though water at 35°C raised temperatures slightly above baseline.

The aim of this in vitro study was to test the effect of 2 finishing–polishing sequences (QB, combining a 12/15-fluted finishing bur and an EVO-Light polisher; QWB, adding a 30-fluted polishing bur after the 12/15-fluted finishing bur used in the QB sequence) on 5 nanotech-based resin composites (Filtek Z500, Ceram X Mono, Ceram X Duo, Tetric Evoceram, and Tetric Evoceram Bulk Fill) by comparing their final surface roughness and hardness values to those of a Mylar strip control group (MS).

Twelve specimens of each nanocomposite were prepared in Teflon moulds. The surface of each resin composite was finished with QB (5 samples), QWB (5 samples), or MS (2 samples), and then evaluated (60 samples). Roughness was analysed with an optical profilometer, microhardness was tested with a Vickers indenter, and the surfaces were examined by optical and scanning electron microscopy. Data were analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.05) followed by the Dunn test.

For the hardness and roughness of nanocomposite resin, the QWB sequence was significantly more effective than QB (p < 0.05). The Filtek Z500 showed significantly harder surfaces regardless of the finishing–polishing sequence (p < 0.05).

QWB yielded the best values of surface roughness and hardness. The hardness and roughness of the 5 nanocomposites presented less significant differences when QWB was used.

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the microleakage and penetration of fissure sealant in permanent molar teeth with fluorosis after pretreatment of the occlusal surface.

A total of 120 third molars with mild dental fluorosis were randomly divided into 6 groups (n = 20). The tooth surfaces were sealed with an unfilled resin fissure sealant (FS) material. The experimental groups included: 1) phosphoric acid etching (AE) + FS (control); 2) AE + One-Step Plus (OS, Bisco) + FS; 3) bur + AE + FS; 4) bur + AE + OS + FS; 5) Er:YAG laser + AE + FS; and 6) Er:YAG laser + AE + OS + FS. After thermocycling, the teeth were immersed in 0.5% fuchsin and sectioned. Proportions of mircoleakage (PM) and unfilled area (PUA) were measured by digital microscope.

Overall, there were significant differences among all groups in the PM (p = 0.00). Group 3 showed the greatest PM, and was significantly different from groups 2 to 6 (p < 0.05). Group 6 showed the lowest PM. Pretreatment with Er:YAG with or without adhesive led to less PM than bur pretreatment. There were no significant differences among groups in PUA.

Conventional acid etching provided a similar degree of occlusal seal in teeth with fluorosis compared to those pretreated with a bur or Er:YAG laser. Pretreatment of pits and fissures with Er:YAG in teeth with fluorosis may be an alternative method before fissure sealant application.

The purpose of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (uSBS) to enamel prepared with different burs and to determine what type of bur were chosen when a self-etching primer adhesive was used.

Enamel of forty-two human molars were used. They were divided into one of six groups (n = 7), Group 1, coarse (125 - 150 µm) diamond bur; Group 2, standard (106 - 125 µm) diamond bur; Group 3, fine (53 - 63 µm) diamond bur; Group 4, extrafine (20 - 30 µm) diamond bur; Group 5, plain-cut carbide bur (no. 245); Group 6, cross-cut carbide bur (no. 557). Clearfil SE Bond and Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray Medical Inc.) was bonded to enamel surface. The bonded specimens were subjected to uSBS testing.

The uSBS of Group 4 was the highest among groups and it was significantly higher than that of Groups 1, 2, 3, and 6 (p < 0.05), but it was not significantly different from that of Group 5.

Different burs used on enamel surface affected the microshear bond strengths of a self-etching primer adhesive to the enamel surface. In the case of Clearfil SE Bond, extrafine diamond and plain-cut carbide bur are recommended for bonding to enamel.