Xerostomia and hyposalivation in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea.

OBJECTIVE: (a) To report the xerostomia prevalence and severity in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). (b) To assess the saliva pH in patients with OSA. DESIGN: Simultaneous cohort observational clinical study. SETTING: In Sleep Medicine Centre at Lomonosov Moscow State University from March to June 2019. PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted on 30 patients with OSA aged from 35 to 65 years. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The diagnosis of sleep apnoea was made after standard polysomnography using the Domino programme. The severity of OSA was indicated using the Apnoea-Hypopnea Index. Xerostomia was evaluated using Fox's test. Hyposalivation was evaluated by measurement of salivary flow rate. Determination of the saliva pH was carried out with a pH metre. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer multi-comparison test. RESULTS: Twenty-two out of 30 (73.3%) patients were diagnosed with "dry mouth". Hyposalivation was observed in 6 out of 30 (20%). Dry mouth on awakening was observed in 60.0%, 72.7% and 88.9% of patients with mild, moderate and severe OSA, respectively. The average salivary flow rate was 0.28 mL/min, 0.24 mL/min and 0.14 mL/min, respectively. The average pH value in patients with mild, moderate and severe apnoea was 6.40 ± 0.017, 6.15 ± 0.27 and 5.87 ± 0.24, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patient with mild and moderate OSA, the saliva amount and rate are similar (P > .05). With the increase of OSA severity, both these parameters change (P < .001). The acidity of the saliva was correlated with the level of OSA, and it statistically increased with the increment of the OSA severity (P < .05-P < .001).

A 24-month randomized clinical study of flowable bulk-fill resin composites in Class III restorations.

Background: The 24-month clinical performance of 3 commercially available flowable bulk-fill resin composites in Class III restorations was evaluated. Material and Methods: Forty-two patients, 27 females (64.3%) and 15 (35.7%) males, received at least 3 Class III restorations that never exceeded 4 mm depth and width. One hundred thirty-eight teeth, divided up into three groups (n=46), were randomly restored with Admira Fusion x-base (AFB), Estelite Bulk Fill Flow (EBF) and SDR flow+ (SDR) in one single increment. A 2-step self-etch adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond (C-SE) with selective enamel etching was used for all restorations. The restorations were clinically evaluated using a slightly modified USPHS criteria at the baseline and every 6 months for 24 months. Success rates of each material between the baseline and at 24 months were compared with the McNemar test. At each timepoint, the comparison of the clinical performance among materials in terms of the ratings of the considered criteria was analyzed by using the Friedman and Cochran's Q tests. Results: At the end of the 24-month follow-up, the overall clinical success rate was 100% for each tested material. However, significant differences among the composites were highlighted for several criteria involving the marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture, surface staining and color match. Conclusions: The flowable bulk-fill resin composites tested showed an overall good effectiveness for Class III restorations after the 24 months, although significant rating differences among the materials emerged for some specific clinical criteria. Key words:Bulk-fill, Class III restoration, flowable composite, clinical study, self-etching adhesive.

Marginal quality of a full-body bulk-fill composite placed with an universal adhesive system in etch-and-rinse and self-etch mode: An in vitrostudy.

BACKGROUND: Marginal seal of a nanohybrid bulk-fill composite compared to a nanohybrid conventional composite, using a universal adhesive (UA) applied in etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) mode was investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-six intact molars were selected and two standardized cavities in each tooth were prepared and allocated into four groups according to restorative material and etching strategy. All samples were placed in a 1% methylene blue solution for 24 h, then cut in the middle of the restorations obtaining two parts (n=144) and used for microscopic evaluation (50x) for dye penetration measurements. RESULTS: The data were analysed by ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test (p<0.05). Marginal seal was influenced by adhesive strategy (p<0.05) but not from the composite used (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Simplified restorations with nanohybrid bulk-fill composite showed comparable marginal leakage to incrementally placed nanohybrid composite. The UA used with a ER technique resulted in better marginal seal irrespective of the restorative material used. Key words:Bulk-fill composite, universal adhesive, self-etching, etch-and-rinse, marginal seal.