Aim: Compare clinical performance and success/retention rates of two multi-mode (MM) adhesives, applied in self-etch (SE) or etch-and-rinse (ER) modes, with SE-all-in-one adhesive (SE/SE with enamel etching) in NCCL restorations at one-year follow-up. Material and methods: Prospective, double-blind RCT approved by the University Fernando Pessoa and the National-Clinical-Research-Ethics Committees (CEIC-20150305), ClinicalTrials.gov registered (NCT02698371), in 38 participants with 210 restorations (AdmiraFusion V R ) randomly allocated to six groups (Adhesives_Adhesion mode), each with 35 restorations: G1-ControlRestorations evaluated at baseline and one-year by three calibrated examiners (ICC !0.952) using FDI criteria and statistical analysis with nonparametric tests (alpha ¼ 0.05). Results: At one-year recall 36 participants, 199 restorations were available for examination; five (2.5%) restorations (G1 n ¼ 2; G2, G3, G4 n ¼ 1) were lost due to retention (p > .05); G1 showed less satisfying marginal adaptation (p < .05) than G2 and MM adhesives groups, particularly G6. Overall success rates (p > .05) were: 93.9% (G1), 97.0% (G2; G3; G4) and 100.0% (G5; G6). Conclusions: MM adhesives (Futurabond V R U and Adhese V R Universal) showed similar and acceptable performance/success rates but also better clinical outputs than the SE-all-in-one adhesive (Futurabond V R DC), particularly in SE mode. Success and retention rates were similar and not dependent on materials or adhesion modes. ARTICLE HISTORY

The pursuit of less time-consuming procedures led to the development of high-power light-curing-units (LCU) to light-cure dental-resin-based-materials. This review aims to describe high-power light-emitting-diode (LED)-LCUs, by a bibliometric systematization of in vitro and in vivo studies. The research-question, by PICO model, aimed to assess the current knowledge on dentistry-based high-power LED-LCUs by analyzing to what extent their use can promote adverse events on materials and patients’ oral condition when compared to low-power LED-LCUs, on daily dental practice. PubMed and B-on database search focused on high-power (≥2000 mW/cm2) LED-LCUs outputs. Studies assessing performance of high-power LED-LCUs for light-curing dental-resin-based-materials were included. From 1822 screened articles, 21 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two marketed units with high levels of radiant emittance (≥2000 mW/cm2 up to 6000 mW/cm2) were identified. Most output values vary on 2000–3000 mW/cm2. The highest output found was 6000 mW/cm2, in FlashMax™P3. Reports suggest that light-curing protocols with lower emittance irradiance and longer exposure outperforms all other combination, however in some clinical procedures high-power LED-LCUs are advocated when compared to low-power LED-LCUs. Moreover, long time exposures and over-curing can be dangerous to the biological vital pulp, and other oral tissues. Evidence showing that high-power LCUs are the best clinical option is still very scarce.

This prospective, double-blind, six-arm parallel randomised controlled trial aimed to compare the performance of two universal adhesives (UAs) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), using the FDI criteria, and analysed if participants/NCCLs’ characteristics influenced the outcome. Thirty-eight 18- to 65-year-old participants were seeking routine dental care at a university clinic. At baseline, 210 NCCLs were randomly allocated to six groups (35 restorations’ each). The UAs tested were FuturabondU (FBU) and AdheseUniversal (ADU) applied in either etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) modes. FuturabondDC (FBDC) in SE and in SE with selective enamel etching (SE-EE) modes were controls. NCCLs were restored with AdmiraFusion. The analysis included nonparametric tests, Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests (α = 0.05). At 2-years, of 191 restorations, ten were missed due to retention loss (all groups, p > 0.05). FBDC (p = 0.037) and FBU (p = 0.041) performed worse than ADU in SE mode. FBDC and FBU also showed worse functional success rate (p = 0.012, p = 0.007, respectively) and cumulative retention rates (p = 0.022, p = 0.012, respectively) than ADU. Some participants/NCCLs’ characteristics influenced (p < 0.05) the outcomes. FBU did not perform as well as ADU, especially in SE mode and due to functional properties. Participants’ age and NCCLs’ degree of dentin sclerosis and internal shape angle influenced FBU performance.

No abstract

No abstract