English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This study evaluated the clinical performance of a fluoride releasing restorative system (FL-Bond II &amp; Beautifil II) in posterior restorations after 18-month placement. IRB forms were submitted with each patient approving by signing their acceptance. Seven Class I and 46 Class II restorations were placed by three clinicians in 38-patients. Each FL-Bond II &amp; Beautifil II restoration was placed under rubber dam isolation according to manufacture's instruction. Clinical evaluation was assessed at baseline, 6 and 18-months using modified USPHS criteria. No post-operative sensitivity was reported in any restored tooth at each patient assessment. Only slight color change with some surface staining was noted. Slight marginal changes were observed in 12 of 53-restorations -seen as step irregularities when a sharp explorer was drawn across the tooth from the enamel toward the restoration interface. Utilizing USPHS evaluation criteria, the clinical performance of each (FL-Bond II &amp; Beautifil II) posterior fluoride releasing system was clinically acceptable at 18-month.

An eighteen-month clinical evaluation of posterior restorations with fluoride releasing adhesive and composite systems