Background This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary caries (SC) and to provide a classification of these materials according to their effectiveness. Methods A search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, BBO, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IBECS and gray literature. Clinical trials were included, with no language or publication date limitations. Paired and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects models, comparing treatments of interest and classifying them according to effectiveness in the permanent and deciduous dentition and at 1-year or 2/more years of follow-up. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated. Results Sixty-two studies were included in the qualitative syntheses and 39 in the quantitative ones. In permanent teeth, resin composite (RC) (RR = 2.00; 95%CI = 1.10, 3.64) and amalgam (AAG) (RR = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09) showed a higher risk of SC than Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). In the deciduous teeth, however, a higher risk of SC was observed with RC than with AAG (RR = 2.46; 95%CI = 1.42, 4.27) and in GIC when compared to Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09). Most randomized clinical trials studies showed low or moderate risk of bias. Conclusion There is a difference between bioactive restorative materials for SC control, with GIC being more effective in the permanent teeth and the RMGIC in the deciduous teeth. Bioactive restorative materials can be adjuvants in the control of SC in patients at high risk for caries.

Background: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary caries (SC) and to provide a classification of these materials according to their effectiveness. Methods: A search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, BBO, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IBECS and gray literature. Clinical trials were included, with no language or publication date limitations. Paired and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects models, comparing treatments of interest and classifying them according to effectiveness in the permanent and deciduous dentition and at 1-year or 2/more years of follow-up. The risk of bias was evaluated based on the Cochrane guidelines. Results: Sixty-two studies were included in the qualitative syntheses and 39 in the quantitative ones. In permanent teeth, resin composite (RC) (RR=2.00; 95%CI = 1.10, 3.64) and amalgam (AAG) (RR=1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09) showed a higher risk of SC than Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). In the deciduous teeth, however, a higher risk of SC was observed with RC than with AAG (RR=2.46; 95%CI = 1.42, 4.27) and in GIC when compared to Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC=1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09). Most articles showed low or moderate risk of bias. Conclusion: There is a difference between bioactive restorative materials for SC control, with GIC being more effective in the permanent teeth and the RMGIC in the deciduous teeth. Bioactive restorative materials can be adjuvants in the control of SC in patients at high risk for caries.

Background Timely diagnosis of oral cancers is critical, and performing biopsies of oral lesions with suspected malignancy is a crucial step in achieving this goal. The waiting time for the diagnosis may be related to the progression and prognosis of malignant neoplasms. Objective The aim of this observational, cross-sectional, national-level study was to identify the factors associated with the waiting time for scheduling an oral biopsy, based on the identification of its need. Methods We used secondary data from the Brazilian public health system, obtained from the 2nd cycle of the National Program to Improve Access and Quality of Dental Specialty Centers (PMAQ-CEO). The study outcome was the waiting time for scheduling an oral biopsy, starting from the identification of the need for the exam. We analyzed individual and contextual variables using multilevel statistical analysis. Results In 51.8% of DSC the waiting time for scheduling a biopsy was non-immediate; in 58.1% of CEOs, the sum of the weekly workload of dentists working in the Stomatology specialty is up to 20 h per week; in terms of coverage, 67.1% of the CEOs have only municipal coverage and 34.0% are references for up to 12 oral health teams in primary health care; only the coverage variable remained significant in the multivariate model (p < 0.05). Of the contextual variables, none of the variables remained significant (p > 0.05). When these were analyzed together, only the coverage remained significant (p < 0.05); Conclusion Our analysis indicates that the waiting time for scheduling an oral biopsy is longer in CEOs that cover only one municipality and is not related to contextual factors.

Background: Working with an interprofessional focus is increasingly necessary, in view of the growing complexity of the population's health needs. This study aims to assess interprofessional collaboration and the teamwork climate in primary health care and determine whether there is a relationship between these two variables. In addition, the relationship of these two measures with the participants' sociodemographic variables was also analyzed. Methods: The AITCS-II instrument was used to measure interprofessional collaboration, while to diagnose teamwork climate, the ECTE instrument was used, a version adapted to the SUS context of the Teamwork Climate Inventory instrument. These two instruments were applied online together with a questionnaire for the sociodemographic characterization of the 544 participants, who belonged to 97 Family Health Strategy teams in a Brazilian municipality. Results: The study showed a strong correlation between interprofessional collaboration and teamwork climate. The studied sample had an unsatisfactory overall score regarding interprofessional collaboration. In addition, there was no relationship between teamwork climate or interprofessional collaboration and the participants' sociodemographic data; including the time of training and the presence or absence of postgraduate studies in public health or family health in the curriculum. Conclusions: The study corroborates the literature, by indicating a correlation between teamwork and interprofessional collaboration, pointing to ECTE as another way to evaluate interprofessional work and the health work process. As for the sociodemographic variables, the results raise an alert towards the strengthening of interprofessional education actions, both during the training of new professionals and in the work process of professionals who are already working.