One hundred twenty-three pulp cappings had been performed by students in 1984 to 1987 (= 10-yr group) or in 1990 to 1992 (= 5-yr group) and were followed up in 1997. Teeth were checked for sensitivity (CO2/electrical pulp testing), percussion, and palpation; radiographs were taken to assess periapical status. In addition several other factors were determined that might have an influence on the success or failure rates, such as base material, type of restoration, site of exposure, etc. Results showed 44.5% failures (18.5% questionable and 37% successful cases) in the 5-yr group and 79.7% failing, 7.3% questionable, and 13% successful cases in the 10-yr group. As a factor of influence, the placement of a definitive restoration within the first 2 days after pulp exposure was found to contribute significantly to the survival rate of these teeth.

No abstract

About 35 years ago, Ryge provided a practical approach to evaluation of clinical performance of restorative materials. This systematic approach was soon universally accepted. While that methodology has served us well, a large number of scientific methodologies and more detailed questions have arisen that require more rigor. Current restorative materials have vastly improved clinical performance and any changes over time are not easily detected by the limited sensitivity of the Ryge criteria in short term clinical investigations. However, the clinical evaluation of restorations not only involves the restorative material per se but also different operative techniques. For instance, a composite resin may show good longevity data when applied in conventional cavities but not in modified operative approaches. Insensitivity, combined with the continually evolving and non-standard investigator modifications of the categories, scales, and reporting methods, has created a body of literature that is extremely difficult to meaningfully interpret. In many cases, the insensitivity of the original Ryge methods is misinterpreted as good clinical performance. While there are many good features of the original system, it is now time to move to a more contemporary one. The current review approaches this challenge in two ways: (1) a proposal for a modern clinical testing protocol for controlled clinical trials, and (2) an in-depth discussion of relevant clinical evaluation parameters, providing 84 references that are primarily related to issues or problems for clinical research trials. Together, these two parts offer a standard for the clinical testing of restorative materials/procedures and provide significant guidance for research teams in the design and conduct of contemporary clinical trials. Part 1 of the review considers the recruitment of subjects, restorations per subject, clinical events, validity versus bias, legal and regulatory aspects, rationales for clinical trial designs, guidelines for design, randomization, number of subjects, characteristics of participants, clinical assessment, standards and calibration, categories for assessment, criteria for evaluation, and supplemental documentation. Part 2 of the review considers categories of assessment for esthetic evaluation, functional assessment, biological responses to restorative materials, and statistical analysis of results. The overall review represents a considerable effort to include a range of clinical research interests over the past years. As part of the recognition of the importance of these suggestions, the review is being published simultaneously in identical form in both the "Journal of Adhesive Dentistry" and the "Clinical Oral Investigations." Additionally an extended abstract will be published in the "International Dental Journal" giving a link to the web full version. This should help to introduce these considerations more quickly to the scientific community.

This systematic review assessed the literature to evaluate the efficiency of polymerization of bulk-fill composite resins at 4 mm restoration depth. PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched with no restrictions on year, publication status, or article's language. Selection criteria included studies that evaluated bulk-fill composite resin when inserted in a minimum thickness of 4 mm, followed by curing according to the manufacturers' instructions; presented sound statistical data; and comparison with a control group and/or a reference measurement of quality of polymerization. The evidence level was evaluated by qualitative scoring system and classified as high-, moderate-and low-evidence level. A total of 534 articles were retrieved in the initial search. After the review process, only 10 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. Most articles included (80%) were classified as high evidence level. Among several techniques, microhardness was the most frequently method performed by the studies included in this systematic review. Irrespective to the "in vitro" method performed, bulk fill RBCs were partially likely to fulfill the important requirement regarding properly curing in 4 mm of cavity depth measured by depth of cure and / or degree of conversion. In general, low viscosities BFCs performed better regarding polymerization efficiency compared to the high viscosities BFCs.

The aim of this study was to determine the antibacterial effectiveness of either chlorhexidine or calcium hydroxide integrated in gutta-percha points compared with chlorhexidine or calcium hydroxide delivered as gel or paste, respectively. A total of 70 initially sterile roots with open accesses were carried for 1 week in the oral cavities of two volunteers. The roots were then removed, and samples were taken from the root canals for microbial analysis. The roots were medicated with calcium hydroxide paste, 5% chlorhexidine gel, or a chlorhexidine- or calcium hydroxide-containing gutta-percha point. The accesses were closed with bonding material, and the roots incubated for 1 week. After removal of the antimicrobial agents, roots were again checked for bacterial growth. One thioglycolate-soaked paper point was then introduced into each canal, and roots were incubated for 1 week more to observe bacterial regrowth. After 1 week of medication, the absolute bacterial count revealed significant differences compared with the controls. However, only the chlorhexidine-gel and the calcium hydroxide paste group showed no microbial colonization in a considerable number of samples after 1 and 2 weeks.