Patient-related outcomes of conventional impression making versus intraoral scanning for prosthetic rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Intraoral scanning has been reported to be preferred by patients over conventional impression making. Nevertheless, information regarding patient-related outcomes for conventional impression making and digital scanning is sparse. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze patient-related outcomes of intraoral scanning and conventional impression methods. The primary outcomes evaluated were patient preference and satisfaction, and the secondary outcomes discomfort, nausea, unpleasant taste, breathing difficulty, pain, and anxiety. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic and manual searches were performed for clinical trials that evaluated patient-related outcomes for intraoral scanning and conventional impression making for prosthetic rehabilitation. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of the studies. Random-effects models using mean difference were used for meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics (α=.05). RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1626 articles, and 11 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Patients preferred intraoral scanning to conventional impression making. The mean difference for patient preference was 15.02 (95% confidence interval of 8.33 - 21.73; P<.001). Discomfort, absence of nausea, absence of unpleasant taste, and absence of breathing difficulty were also significantly different (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoral scanning is a suitable alternative to conventional impression procedures, promoting less discomfort for patients sensitive to taste, nausea, and breathing difficulty than when conventional impression making techniques are used.

A universal adhesive containing copper nanoparticles improves the stability of hybrid layer in a cariogenic oral environment: An in situ study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate how incorporating copper nanoparticles (CuNp) into a universal adhesive affects the antimicrobial activity (AMA), bond strength (µTBS), nanoleakage (NL), elastic modulus (EM) and nanohardness (NH) of resin-dentin interfaces, at 24 h (24 h) and after in situ cariogenic challenge (CC). METHODS: CuNp (0% [control] and 0.1 wt%) was added to an adhesive. After enamel removal, the adhesives were applied to dentine surfaces. Each restored tooth was sectioned longitudinally to obtain two hemi-teeth; one of them was evaluated after 24 h, and the other was included in one of the intra-oral palatal devices placed in the mouths of 10 volunteers for 14 days in CC. After that, each hemi-tooth was removed, and any oral biofilm that formed was collected. The AMA was evaluated against Streptococcus mutans. For the 24 h and CC groups, each hemi-tooth was sectioned in the "x" direction to obtain one slice for each EM/NH evaluation. The remains of each hemi-tooth were sectioned in the "x" and "y" directions to obtain resin-dentin beams for µTBS and NL evaluation (24 h and CC). ANOVA and Tukey's test were applied (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The presence of CuNp significantly improved AMA as well as all of the evaluated properties (24 h; p < 0.05). Although the adhesive properties (µTBS/NL) for all groups decreased after CC (p < 0.05), the adhesive containing CuNp showed higher µTBS and lower NL as compared to the copper-free adhesive (p < 0.05). The incorporation of CuNp maintained NH/EM values after CC (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adding 0.1% CuNp to an adhesive may provide antimicrobial activity and increase its bonding and mechanical properties, even under a cariogenic challenge. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first in situ study proving that incorporating CuNp into an adhesive is an achievable alternative to provide antimicrobial properties and improve the integrity of the hybrid layer under in situ cariogenic challenge.

Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the five-year clinical performance of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU; 3M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: SU-ERm: etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; SU-ERd: etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; SU-Set: selective enamel etching; and SU-SE: self-etch. A nanofilled composite resin was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 5 years using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The survival rates (retention/fractures) were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier and the log-rank test. For the secondary outcomes, Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank was applied (α = 0.05). RESULTS: After 5 years the recall rate was 86%. The retention/fracture rates were 93% for Erm and ERd, 88.4% for SEet and 81.4% for SE. A significant difference was observed for SE vs. ERd and SE vs. ERm (p = 0.01). Also, marginal discoloration and adaptation showed significant differences with ERm and ERd resulting in fewer marginal discrepancies than SE (p < 0.05). SIGNIFICANCE: After 5 years, the clinical behavior of the universal adhesive in the etch-and-rinse strategy was better when compared to the self-etch strategy. The use of selective enamel etching is highly recommended for the self-etch strategy. The FDI and USPHS evaluation criteria showed similar results after 5 years.

Different light-activation systems associated with dental bleaching: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review and a network meta-analysis were performed to answer the following research question: "Is there any light-activation protocol capable of improving color change efficacy when associated with an in-office bleaching gel in adults?" MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, and SIGLE without date and/or language restrictions in April 23, 2017 (updated on March 30, 2018). IADR abstracts (1990-2018), unpublished and ongoing trial registries, dissertations, and theses were also searched. Only randomized clinical trials conducted in adults that included at least one group treated with in-office dental bleaching with light activation were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A random-effects Bayesian-mixed treatment comparison (MTC) model was used to combine light-activated versus light-free in-office bleaching with direct light-free comparison trials. A meta-analysis with independent analysis (high- and low-concentrate hydrogen peroxide [HP]) was conducted for color change (∆E*, ∆SGU). RESULTS: After the removal of duplicates, title, and abstract screening, 28 studies remained. Nine were considered to be at a low RoB, five were at a high RoB, and the remaining were at an unclear RoB. The MTC analysis showed no significant difference in color change (ΔE* and ΔSGU) between light-activation protocols and light-free in-office bleaching, regardless of the HP concentration in the efficacy of the bleaching. CONCLUSION: No type of light-activated in-office bleaching was superior to light-free in-office bleaching for both high- and low-concentrate in-office bleaching gels (PROSPERO-CRD42017078743). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although many times dental professionals use "laser whitening" as a form of marketing, this study confirmed that no type of light-activation for in-office bleaching can improve the bleaching efficacy.

In-office dental bleaching with light vs. without light: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to answer the following research question: Does light-activated in-office vital bleaching have a greater whitening efficacy and higher tooth sensitivity (TS) in comparison with in-office vital bleaching without light when used in adults? DATA AND SOURCE: Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults who had in-office bleaching with and without light activation were included. Controlled vocabulary and keywords were used in a comprehensive search for titles and abstracts in PubMed, and this search was adapted for Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, and SIGLE without restrictions in May 2016 and was updated in August 2017. IADR abstracts (1990-2016), unpublished- and ongoing-trial registries, dissertations, and theses were also searched. The risk-of-bias tool of the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment. The quality of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Through the use of the random effects model, a meta-analysis with a subgroup analysis (low and high hydrogen peroxide concentration) was conducted for color change (ΔE*, ΔSGU) as well as the risk and intensity of TS. STUDY SELECTION: We retrieved 6663 articles, but after removing duplicates and non-relevant articles, only 21 RCTs remained. No significant difference in ΔE*, ΔSGU, and risk and intensity of TS was observed (p > .05). For ΔE and risk of TS, the quality of the evidence was graded as moderate whereas the evidence for ΔSGU and intensity of TS was graded as very low and low, respectively. CONCLUSION: Without considering variations in the protocols, the activation of in-office bleaching gel with light does not seem to improve color change or affect tooth sensitivity, regardless of the hydrogen peroxide concentration. (PROSPERO - CRD42016037630). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although it is commercially claimed that in-office bleaching associated with light improves and accelerates color change, this study did not confirm this belief for in-office bleaching gels with either high or low levels of hydrogen peroxide.

Effect of self-curing activators and curing protocols on adhesive properties of universal adhesives bonded to dual-cured composites.

OBJECTIVES: To measure microshear bond strength (µSBS) and nanoleakage (NL) of self-etch universal adhesives under core buildup restorations using different curing protocols, at 24h and after 6-month water storage. METHODS: Middle dentin of 55 molars was divided into: Clearfil Universal Bond [CFU], Prime&Bond Elect [PBE], and One Coat 7 Universal [OCU]. All-Bond Universal [ABU] and Clearfil SE Bond [CSE] were used as control. CFU, PBE and OCU were: light-cured [LC], dual-cured [DC] and self-cured [SC]. Data were analyzed separately (two-way ANOVA), Tukey's test (α=0.05). RESULTS: µSBS: At 24h OCU/LC resulted in statistically higher µSBS than ABU. CSE/DC showed statistically higher µSBS than all DC adhesives. PBE/LC resulted in significant lower µSBS than the respective DC/SC modes (p<0.001). At 6-month, both CFU and PBE (LC/SC), resulted in a significant decrease in µSBS. µSBS for OCU/DC decreased significantly (p<0.001) compared to the respective LC/SC modes. NL: At 24h, ABU showed %NL similar to CBU/LC and OCU/LC (p>0.05). CSE/DC resulted in significantly higher %NL than OCU/DC but significantly lower than PBE/DC. CFU/LC/SC resulted in significantly lower %NL than CFU/DC. PBE/SC resulted in significant lower %NL than PBE/LC and PBE/DC. OCU/LC and OCU/DC resulted in significant lower %NL than OCU/SC (p<0.001). At 6-month ABU, CSE, CFU/LC and CFU/SC, resulted in a significant increase in %NL. SIGNIFICANCE: Self-cured activator and different curing protocols influenced µSBS and NL of self-etch universal adhesives, but this influence was material-dependent.

Degradation of dentin-bonded interfaces treated with collagen cross-linking agents in a cariogenic oral environment: An in situ study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of treatment using collagen cross-linking agents as primer on resin-dentin bond interfaces subjected to cariogenic oral environment (COE). METHODS: Each of forty human teeth had two cavities (4×4×1.5mm) prepared within enamel margins. These cavities were acid-etched and treated by the primers containing one of the following treatment agents (6.5% proanthocyanidins, 0.1% riboflavin-UVA activated light, 5% glutaraldehyde or distilled water as a control group). After that the cavities were bonded and restored with resin composite. One restoration for each tooth was tested immediately (IM) and another was included in an intra-oral palatal device that was placed in each mouth of ten adult volunteers for 14 days in COE. After 14 days, the teeth were removed and each restoration was sectioned to obtain a slice for Knoop microhardness (KHN) and resin-dentin bonded sticks for microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and nanoleakage (NL) evaluation. Data were evaluated by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: After 14days in a COE, the KHN was reduced for all groups, except for the glutaraldehyde group; however, the proanthocyanidins group retained the highest KHN in IM and after COE (p<0.05). The µTBS was not reduced after COE for the proanthocyanidins and glutaraldehyde groups, however only the proanthocyanidins treatment did not increase the NL after COE (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The in situ study model seems to be a suitable short-term methodology to investigate the degradation of the bonding interfaces under a more realistic condition. Under COE, the proanthocyanidins and glutaraldehyde treatments produced stable interfaces that are worth further clinical investigation.