-
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2020To perform a review on the influence of preheating and/or heating of resinous and ionomeric materials on their physical and mechanical properties and to discuss the...
OBJECTIVES
To perform a review on the influence of preheating and/or heating of resinous and ionomeric materials on their physical and mechanical properties and to discuss the benefits and methods of preheating/heating that have been used.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was performed in the Pubmed, Scopus, Scielo, and gray literature databases. In vitro studies published from 1980 until now were searched using the descriptors "composite resins OR glass ionomer cements OR resin cements OR adhesives AND heating OR preheating." Data extraction and quality of work evaluation were performed by two independent evaluators.
RESULTS
At the end of reading the search titles and abstracts, 74 articles were selected. Preheating of composite resins reduces viscosity, facilitates adaptation to cavity preparation walls, increases the degree of conversion, and decreases the polymerization shrinkage. Preheating of resin cements improves strength, adhesion, and degree of conversion. Dental adhesives showed good results such as higher bond strength to dentin. However, unlike resinous materials, ionomeric materials have an increase in viscosity upon heating.
CONCLUSIONS
Preheating improves the mechanical and physical properties. However, there is a lack of clinical studies to confirm the advantages of preheating technique.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Preheating of dental restorative materials is a simple, safe, and successful technique. In order to achieve good results, agility and training are necessary so the material would not lose heat until the restorative procedure. Also, care is necessary to avoid bubbles and formation of gaps, which compromises the best restoration performance.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Materials; Dentin; Glass Ionomer Cements; Heating; Materials Testing; Resin Cements
PubMed: 33083851
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03637-2 -
Journal of Dentistry Dec 2020To investigate the effectiveness of desensitizing agents (DA) on dentin hypersensitivity (DH) after non-surgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) through a systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effectiveness of desensitizing agents (DA) on dentin hypersensitivity (DH) after non-surgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA
The PICO strategy was used to include randomized clinical trials in human subjects with DH (P) after NSPT treated with DA (I) compared to those treated with placebo or control (C) to identify DH relief (O). The Cochrane guidelines and GRADE was used to classify the risk of bias and the quality of the evidence, respectively.
SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs, Cochrane Library databases, and OpenGrey were searched on the 20 of May 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Nine studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Five meta-analyses were performed. Three meta-analyzes assessed the effectiveness of DA compared to a placebo or control in relation to pain assessment stimuli and two meta-analyzes assessed the mechanism of action of DA. For the mechanical stimulus in overall analysis, the control group presented a higher mean of pain reduction (SMD 1.03 [0.73, 1.32], p < 0.001) with very low certainty of evidence. For water (SMD -0.78 [-1.22, -0.35], p = 0.0009) and evaporative in overall analysis (SMD -1.21 [-1.79, -0.64], p < 0.001) stimuli, the DA decreased DH pain with very low and low certainty of evidence, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Due to the limited quality of evidence, there is no definitive conclusion on the effectiveness of DA on DH after NSPT. Thus, further clinical studies with a low risk of bias and high-quality evidence are encouraged to reinforce the certainty of evidence on that issue.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The use of desensitizing agents show promise for relief of dentin hypersensitivity after non-surgical periodontal therapy.
Topics: Dentin Desensitizing Agents; Dentin Sensitivity; Humans; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 33069772
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103498 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2020Controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of delayed toothbrushing in decreasing erosive tooth wear (ETW). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of delayed toothbrushing in decreasing erosive tooth wear (ETW). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of delayed toothbrushing on ETW.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020200463). PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched with no publication year limits. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. In situ and in vitro studies comparing ETW after delayed and immediate toothbrushing following an erosive attack were included. Review Manager software 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was used for statistical analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I statistics.
RESULTS
Of the 565 potentially relevant studies, 26 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Twelve articles were included in the systematic review, and 11 were included in the qualitative analyses. No significant difference in the ETW of human enamel was observed between delayed and immediate toothbrushing (P = 0.13), whereas significantly less ETW of bovine enamel was observed after delayed toothbrushing (P < 0.001). No significant difference in the ETW of bovine dentin was observed between delayed and immediate toothbrushing (P = 0.34). Studies on human dentin were not available. Subgroup analyses revealed a significant contribution of the use of fluoridated toothpaste to decreasing the ETW of human enamel after erosion and toothbrush abrasion (P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Bovine and human teeth behaved differently in response to erosion and toothbrush abrasion. Delayed toothbrushing after an erosive attack was not effective at decreasing the ETW of human enamel compared to immediate toothbrushing, whereas it was effective at decreasing the ETW of bovine enamel.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Delayed toothbrushing alone after the consumption of erosive foodstuffs or beverages is not capable of preventing erosive enamel wear.
Topics: Animals; Beverages; Cattle; Dental Enamel; Humans; Tooth Abrasion; Tooth Erosion; Tooth Wear; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 33052542
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03614-9 -
Operative Dentistry Nov 2020One-step self-etch adhesive systems provide a clinical time gain, decreasing the number of clinical steps. When a clinician is able to follow a simpler process of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
One-step self-etch adhesive systems provide a clinical time gain, decreasing the number of clinical steps. When a clinician is able to follow a simpler process of adhesion there is less chance of adhesive failure.
SUMMARY
Objective: A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed to evaluate whether one-step self-etching (1SSE) adhesive systems are as effective as two-step self-etching (2SSE) adhesives in noncarious cervical lesion (NCCL) restorations.Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and recorded in the PROSPERO (CRD42018096747). Electronic systematic searches were conducted in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for published articles. Only randomized clinical trials that compared 1SSE with 2SSE adhesives systems were selected. The outcomes were retention, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, color match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and anatomical form.Results: The searches resulted in 476 studies. After applying the eligibility criteria, five randomized controlled trials were selected in which 822 restorations in NCCLs were distributed in 237 patients. The results showed no statistical difference between 1SSE and 2SSE in relation to retention (p=0.23; relative risk [RR]=1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.76, 3.19), postoperative sensitivity ( p=0.50; RR=3.00; 95% CI=0.13, 70.64), Secondary caries (p=0.63; RR=0.68; 95% CI=0.14, 3.31), color match (p=0.41; RR=0.64; 95% CI=0.23, 1.83), marginal discoloration (p=0.93; RR=1.02; 95% CI=0.65, 1.61), and anatomical form (p=0.56; RR=1.38; 95% CI=0.46, 4.13). However there was statistical difference in relation to marginal adaptation ( p=0.01; RR=1.95; 95% CI=1.14, 3.34).Conclusion: This systematic review with meta-analysis revealed that both 1SSE and 2SSE adhesive systems have comparable clinical effectiveness in a follow-up period of 12 to 24 months, except in relation to marginal adaptation.
Topics: Adhesives; Composite Resins; Dental Cements; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Humans; Resin Cements; Tooth Cervix
PubMed: 32503033
DOI: 10.2341/19-185-L