Self-Etching Primers – an Alternative to the Conventional Acid Etch Technique?

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the bonding capacity of three self-etching primers (Clearfil SE Bond [SE], Clearfil Liner Bond 2V [CLB], Novabond [NOVA]) to enamel. Two adhesive systems with a separate phosphoric acid etching procedure (Gluma Comfort Bond [GLU], Kurasper F [KU]) served as controls. 60 human incisors were used to evaluate shear bond strengths of composite cylinders to enamel. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the groups (p < 0.001). The mean value for groups GLU, KU, CLB and SE was 24 MPa. The shear bond strength recorded for the Novabond system was significantly lower (17 MPa). CONCLUSION: The results of the present investigation indicate that enamel bonding especially with the self-etching primers CLB and SE is as effective as conventional phosphoric acid etching.     

Can warfarin be continued during dental extraction? Results of a randomized controlled trial

A randomized controlled trial was set up to investigate whether patients who were taking warfarin and had an International Normalised Ratio (INR) within the normal therapeutic range require cessation of their anticoagulation drugs before dental extractions. Of 109 patients who completed the trial, 52 were allocated to the control group (warfarin stopped 2 days before extraction) and 57 patients were allocated to the intervention group (warfarin continued). The incidence of bleeding complications in the intervention group was higher (15/57, 26%) than in the control group (7/52, 14%) but this difference was not significant. Two patients in the study required hospital review for bleeding and all other episodes of bleeding were controlled by patients at home. Continuing warfarin when the INR is < 4.1 may lead to an increase in minor post-extraction bleeding after dental extractions but we found no evidence of an increase in clinically important bleeding. As there are risks associated with stopping warfarin, the practice of routinely discontinuing it before dental extractions should be reconsidered.     

What Is the Best Predictor for Oral Cleanliness After Brushing? Results From an Observational Cohort Study

Background: Brushing performance is an important factor for brushing success. Thus, observing brushing performance might help to explain deficits in oral hygiene. However, it is unknown how brushing behavior observed at one time relates to brushing capabilities observed at another time. The authors assessed the predictive validity of video‐observed habitual brushing behavior for the capability to achieve oral cleanliness several weeks later. Methods: Study participants (N = 101) were video‐recorded while cleaning their teeth. Two independent, calibrated examiners assessed brushing duration, evenness of distribution of brushing time across areas of the mouth as one indicator of brushing systematics, and duration of specific brushing movements. Weeks later (mean: 6.4 weeks; range: 1 to 24 weeks), 70 participants were asked to remove plaque to the best of their ability, and degree of oral cleanliness was assessed immediately afterward. A forward regression analysis was performed to assess the predictive values of brushing parameters. Results: Regression analysis revealed that evenness of distribution of brushing time and duration of circling movements explained 20.8% of variance of oral cleanliness (P <0.001). Conclusion: Evenness of distribution of brushing time and duration of circling movements are aspects of observed habitual brushing behavior that predict brushing capabilities in terms of oral cleanliness.     

Statistical vs Clinical Significance in Product Testing: Can They Be Designed to Satisfy Equivalence?

Statistical issues associated with demonstrating significance between treatment groups (efficacy or superiority) and nonsignificance (equivalence) are presented and discussed. Methodologies for demonstrating efficacy of a product are proposed and contrasted, incorporating clinical and statistical criteria, with emphasis on situations in which placebo groups are precluded from the study design. Distinctions are drawn between study designs for demonstrating superiority and those for equivalence, including the determination of sample sizes needed for the different approaches. The "at least as good as" criterion is proposed as a reasonable alternative to that of equivalence in active control equivalence studies for demonstrating that dental product modifications or new products are efficacious.     

Can Irrigant Agitation Lead to the Formation of a Smear Layer?

IntroductionThis study aimed to assess whether ultrasonic activation (UA) or the EasyClean (EC; BassiEndo, Belo Horizonte, BH, Brazil) or EDDY (ED; VDW, Munich, Germany) systems used to promote agitation of the irrigating solutions during the final irrigation step can lead to smear layer formation in the apical third of the root canal.MethodsThirteen premolars were instrumented with the Reciproc R40 file (VDW) and embedded in silicone, forming a closed irrigation/aspiration system. The teeth were cleaved, and 4 indentations were made on the inner buccal wall of the canal to standardize the observation sites. All the specimens were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath and evaluated under environmental scanning electron microscopy, thus constituting the control group. The same specimens were reassembled, submitted to final irrigation using UA or the ED or EC systems, and classified using a 4-level scoring system. The data were analyzed using the kappa, Pearson, and Kruskal-Wallis tests (P < .05).ResultsSmear layer formation occurred in all of the experimental groups and at all apical levels. At 3 and 4 mm, all of the experimental groups had significantly higher levels of smear layer formation than the control group. At 2 mm, the level of smear layer formation in the UA group was significantly higher than that of the control group, and there were no significant differences among the EC, ED, and control groups. At 1 mm, there were no significant differences between the ED and control groups, and the levels of smear layer formation in the EC and UA groups were significantly higher than that of the control group. There were no significant differences between the ED and EC groups at any of the apical levels.ConclusionsThe smear layer formation occurred in all of the specimens submitted to final irrigation, irrespective of the technique used.     

Test your decision-making. When to do endodontic retreatment? Results of a study

The goals of this survey were to determine the most frequent therapeutic option and to evaluate the consensus among a sample of Belgian practitioners managing the same simulated cases of root treated teeth. On average, conservative options (nonsurgical retreatment 35.27% and no retreatment 29.61%) are the most selected alternatives. Surgical options and extraction respectively constitute 21.18% and 13% of the treatment propositions. As expected, the presence of radiographic and/or clinical signs resulted in a more aggressive attitude, but the presence of symptoms does not seem to be a valid reason for reintervention. The results of the study demonstrate considerable interindividual variations in clinical management of root treated teeth, regardless of personal factors, such as gender, years of experience and graduation institution. Even if a consensus appears within a group of professionals, it is not necessarily applied by a majority of practitioners; this contributes certainly to the explanation of the geographical or institutional variations noted in the medical practices.