A 13-year clinical evaluation of two three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions

This 13-year randomized clinical trial compared the clinical effectiveness of two three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in combination with a hybrid, stiffer composite versus a micro-filled, more flexible composite. The influence of composite stiffness on the clinical performance of one of the adhesives was assessed as well. One hundred and forty-two non-carious cervical lesions were restored with composites with contrasting stiffness. Seventy-one patients randomly received two cervical restorations placed following two out of three adhesive procedures: (1) the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Permaquick applied with the stiff micro-hybrid composite Amelogen Hybrid (PMQ-H, Ultradent), (2) Permaquick applied with the more flexible micro-filled Amelogen Microfill (PMQ-M, Ultradent), or (3) the “gold-standard” three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Optibond FL applied with the micro-hybrid composite Prodigy (OFL-P, Kerr). The restorations were evaluated after 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 13 years of clinical service regarding their retention, marginal integrity and discoloration, caries occurrence, preservation of tooth vitality, and post-operative sensitivity. Retention loss, severe marginal defects, and/or discoloration that needed intervention (repair or replacement) and the occurrence of caries were considered as clinical failures. The recall rate at 13 years was 77%. Bond degradation after 13 years was mainly characterized by a further increase in the presence of small but clinically acceptable marginal defects and superficial marginal discoloration. Twelve percent of the OFL-P restorations were clinically unacceptable. In the PMQ group, 22% of the PMQ-M restorations and 26% of the PMQ-H restorations needed repair or replacement. Regarding the clinical failure rate, Optibond FL scored significantly better than Permaquick (McNemar; p = 0.015). No statistically significant differences were found between the micro-filled and the hybrid composite for each of the parameters evaluated (McNemar, p > 0.05). After 13 years of clinical functioning, the clinical effectiveness of the three adhesive/composite combinations remained highly acceptable.     

Systematic review of medical therapy to prevent recurrent diverticulitis

Aim and background

One of today’s controversies remains the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis. Current guidelines advise a conservative approach, based on studies showing low recurrence rates and a high operative morbidity and mortality. Conservative measures in prevention recurrence are dietary advises and medical therapies, including probiotics and 5-aminosalicylic acid.

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review is to assess whether medical or dietary therapies can prevent recurrent diverticulitis after a primary episode of acute diverticulitis.

Method and search strategy

We searched different databases for papers published between January 1966 and January 2011.

Study selection

Clinical studies were eligible for inclusion if they assessed the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis with a medical or dietary therapy. Exclusion criteria were studies without a control group.

Results

Three randomized controlled trials (RCT), all with a Jadad quality score of 2 out of 5, were included in this systematic review. Mesalazine results in significantly less disease recurrence and fewer symptoms after an acute episode. The use of probiotics decreases symptoms but does not reduce recurrence. No difference in effect is seen when Balsalazide is added to probiotics compared to probiotics only. No relevant studies on dietary therapy/advices or antibiotics for prevention of recurrent diverticulitis were found.

Conclusion

The evidence that supports medical therapy to prevent recurrent diverticulitis is of poor quality. Treatment with 5-aminosalicylic acid seems promising. Based on current data, no recommendation of any non-operative relapse prevention therapy for diverticular disease can be made.     

GLP1 and cancer: friend or foe?

The new incretin-based therapies, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors and glucagon like peptide 1 (GLP1) receptor agonists are widely used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes because of their glucose-lowering capacity with low risk of hypoglycemia. As they are weight neutral or induce weight loss in this mostly overweight population, they are popular among clinicians and patients alike. Nonetheless, concerns have been raised about GLP1's trophic effects. While increased β cell mass observed in rodents sounds appealing for treatment of diabetes, there was also an increased incidence of medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) in some species. We reviewed literature available in the Medline database until March 2012. Safety signals have emerged for MTC and pancreatic carcinoma from adverse event databases in the United States and Europe. Considering the relatively short duration of these studies, it is more likely that premalignant lesions are stimulated in presence of GLP1, rather than new neoplasms induced. Moreover, interpreting results of animal studies is difficult because of species-specific differences in presence and density of GLP1 receptors. Furthermore, data are emerging suggesting beneficial effects of GLP1 on colon and breast cancer. In conclusion, presently, the benefits of using DPP4 inhibitors or GLP1 receptor agonists for treatment of type 2 diabetes outweigh the risks. Nonetheless, their safety profile should be monitored and their indications should be widened cautiously. At present they remain contra-indicated in patients with a personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2.