The purpose of this study was to compare mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA; Dentsply, Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK, USA), which is widely used as root-end filling material, with DiaRoot BioAggregate (DB; Innovative BioCaramix Inc, Vancouver, BC, Canada), newly developed product, by using MG63 osteoblast-like cells. MTA, DB, and Intermediate Restorative Material (IRM; Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA) were used for root-end filling material while tissue culture plastic was used for control group. Each material was mixed and, the mixtures were left to set for 24 hours. MG63 cells were seeded to each group and then they were cultured for attachment for 4 hours. Following the attachment of cells to the root-end filling material, early cellular response was observed. After another 12 hours'culture, the level of attachment between cells and material was observed and in order to identify the effect of each material to bone formation, transforming growth factor beta1 (TGFβ1) and osteocalin (OC) were estimated by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the amount of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) was also measured. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. As a result, only at OC and the number of cells which were attached to materials, there was no statistical difference between MTA and DB. At other items, there was statistically significant difference in all groups. Although DB has not shown exactly the same cellular response like that of MTA, the number of attached cells shows that biocompatibility of the material and OC indicates bone formation rate. Therefore, if DB is used for root end filling material, it is expected to lead to similar results to MTA.

The purpose of the present study was to compare the influence of post-surface treatment with silane, hydrogen peroxide, hydrofluoric acid or sandblasting and to investigate the effect of silane in combination of the other treatments on the microtensile bond strength between fiber posts and composite resins for core build-up. Thirty-two glass-fiber posts (FRC Postec Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) were divided into eight groups according to the different surface pretreatments performed: silane application (S); immersion in 28% hydrogen peroxide (HP); immersion in hydrogen peroxide followed by application of silane (HP-S); immersion in 4% hydrofluoric acid gel (HF); immersion in hydrofluoric acid gel followed by application of silane (HF-S); sandblasting with aluminum oxide particles (SB); sandblasting followed by application of silane (SB-S). In control group, no surface treatment was performed. The composite resin (Tetric Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was applied onto the posts to produce the composite cylinder specimen. It was sectioned into sticks to measure the microtensile bond strength. The data was analyzed with one-way ANOVA and LSD test for post hoc comparison (p < 0.05). Post pretreatment with sandblasting enhanced the interfacial strength between the fiber posts and core materials. Moreover, sand-blasting followed by application of silane appears to be the most effective method that can improve the clinical performance of glass fiber posts.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of instrument compliance on the polymerization shrinkage stress measurements of dental composites. The contraction strain and stress of composites during light curing were measured by a custom made stress-strain analyzer, which consisted of a displacement sensor, a cantilever load cell and a negative feedback mechanism. The instrument can measure the polymerization stress by two modes: with compliance mode in which the instrument compliance is allowed, or without compliance mode in which the instrument compliance is not allowed.

A flowable (Filtek Flow: FF) and two universal hybrid (Z100: Z1 and Z250: Z2) composites were studied. A silane treated metal rod with a diameter of 3.0 mm was fixed at free end of the load cell, and other metal rod was fixed on the base plate. Composite of 1.0 mm thickness was placed between the two rods and light cured. The axial shrinkage strain and stress of the composite were recorded for 10 minutes during polymerization, and the tensile modulus of the materials was also determined with the instrument. The statistical analysis was conducted by ANOVA, paired t-test and Tukey's test (α<0.05).

There were significant differences between the two measurement modes and among materials. With compliance mode, the contraction stress of FF was the highest: 3.11 (0.13), followed by Z1: 2.91 (0.10) and Z2: 1.94 (0.09) MPa. When the instrument compliance is not allowed, the contraction stress of Z1 was the highest: 17.08 (0.89), followed by FF: 10.11 (0.29) and Z2: 9.46 (1.63) MPa. The tensile modulus for Z1, Z2 and FF was 2.31 (0.18), 2.05 (0.20), 1.41 (0.11) GPa, respectively. With compliance mode, the measured stress correlated with the axial shrinkage strain of composite; while without compliance the elastic modulus of materials played a significant role in the stress measurement.

The purpose of this study is to compare the shear bond strength of repaired composite resin with different bonding agents and evaluate the effect of bonding agents on composite repair strength. Forty composite specimens (Z-250) were prepared and aged for 1week by thermocycling between 5 and 55℃ with a dwell time of 30s. After air abrasion with 50 µm aluminum oxide, following different bonding agents were applied (n = 10); SB group: Scotchbond multipurpose adhesive (3 step Total-Etch system); SE group: Clearfil SE bond (2 step Self-Etch system); XP group: XP bond (2 step Total-Etch system); XE group: XenoIII (1 step Self-Etch system). After bonding procedure was completed, new composite resin (Z-250) was applied to the mold and cured. For control group, 10 specimens were prepared. Seven days after repair, shear bond strength was measured. Data was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05). The means and standard deviations of shear bond strength (MPa ± S.D.) per group were as follows: SB group: 17.06; SE group: 19.10; XP group: 14.44; XE group: 13.57; Control Group: 19.40. No significant difference found in each group. Within the limit of this study, it was concluded that the different type of bonding system was not affect on the shear bond strength of repaired composite resin.