This study investigated the impact of a separate silanization step on the repair bond strength of composite substrates using a universal adhesive after various mechanical surface treatments. Composite specimens were aged and exposed to the following mechanical roughening treatments: diamond bur abrasion, aluminum oxide sandblasting, or silica coating. The specimens were then either left untreated or conditioned with universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal), or a silane coupling agent was applied before the use of the universal adhesive or a conventional adhesive (Optibond FL). The conditioned surfaces and fresh substrate (positive control group) were covered with repair composite, and microtensile bond strength testing was performed. The significantly highest bond strength was obtained in the positive control group. Repair bond strength of the universal adhesive applied after a separate silanization step was similar to that without prior silanization, independent of the mechanical surface treatment. Moreover, after silica coating, no significant differences in the repair bond strength were detected among the different adhesive treatments. In conclusion, a separate silanization step before surface conditioning with the universal adhesive does not enhance the repair bond strength. On silica-coated composite substrates, repair bond strength values of the universal adhesive were similar to those of the conventional adhesive.

Aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of orthopedic treatment for Class II malocclusion with Functional Appliances (FAs) on the dimensions of the upper airways. Eight databases were searched up to October 2020 for randomized or nonrandomized clinical studies on FA treatment of Class II patients with untreated control groups. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment according to Cochrane guidelines, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by subgroup/meta-regression analyses and assessment of the quality of evidence. A total of 20 nonrandomized clinical studies (4 prospective/16 retrospective) including 969 patients (47.9% male; mean age 10.9 years) were identified. Orthopedic treatment with FAs was associated with increased oropharynx volume (MD = 2356.14 mm3; 95% CI = 1276.36 to 3435.92 mm3; p < 0.001) compared to natural growth. Additionally, significant increases in nasopharynx volume, minimal constricted axial area of pharyngeal airway, and airway were seen, while removable FAs showed considerably greater effects than fixed FAs (p = 0.04). Finally, patient age and treatment duration had a significant influence in the effect of FAs on airways, as had baseline matching and sample size adequacy. Clinical evidence on orthopedic Class II treatment with FAs is associated with increased upper airway dimensions. However, the quality of evidence is very low due to methodological issues of existing studies, while the clinical relevance of increases in airway dimensions remains unclear.