Despite therapeutic progress, opportunistic oral fungal infectious diseases have increased in prevalence, especially in denture wearers. The combination of entrapment of yeast cells in irregularities in denture-base and denture-relining materials, poor oral hygiene and several systemic factors is the most probable cause for the onset of this infectious disease. Hence colonization and growth on prostheses by Candida species are of clinical importance. The purpose of this review is to critically discuss several key factors controlling the adhesion of Candida species which are relevant to denture-associated stomatitis. Although there is some consensus on the role of surface properties, studies on several other factors, as the use of denture liners, salivary properties and yeast-bacterial interactions, have shown contradictory findings. A comprehensive fundamental understanding is hampered by conflicting findings due to the large variations in experimental protocols, while other factors have never been thoroughly studied. Surface free energy and surface roughness control the initial adherence, but temporal changes have not been reported. Neither have in vivo studies shown if the substratum type is critical in dictating biofilm accumulation during longer periods in the oral environment. The contribution of saliva is unclear due to factors like variations in its collection and handling. Initial findings have disclosed that also bacteria are crucial for the successful establishment of Candida in biofilms, but the clinical significance of this observation is yet to be confirmed. In conclusion, there is a need to standardize experimental procedures, to bridge the gap between laboratory and in vivo methodologies and findings and – in general – to thoroughly investigate the factors that modulate the initial attachment and subsequent colonization of denture-base materials and the oral mucosa of patients subjected to Candida infections. Information on how these factors can be controlled is required and this may help to prevent the disease. The societal impact of such information is significant given the magnitude of the candidosis problem worldwide.

Because there are several ways to cement glass-fiber posts (GFPs) into root canals, there is no consensus on the best strategy to achieve high bond strengths. A systematic review was conducted to determine if there is difference in bond strength to dentin between regular and self-adhesive resin cements and to verify the influence of several variables on the retention of GFPs. This report followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. In vitro studies that investigated the bond strength of GFPs luted with self-adhesive and regular resin cements were selected. Searches were carried out in the PubMed and Scopus databases. No publication year or language limit was used, and the last search was done in October 2012. A global comparison was performed between self-adhesive and regular resin cements. Two subgroup analyses were performed: 1) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Etch-and-rinse adhesive and 2) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Self-etch adhesive. The analyses were carried out using fixed-effect and random-effects models. The results showed heterogeneity in all comparisons, and higher bond strength to dentin was identified for self-adhesive cements. Although the articles included in this meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity and high risk of bias, the in vitro literature seems to suggest that use of self-adhesive resin cement could improve the retention of GFPs into root canals.

No abstract

No abstract

A nationwide survey of dentists was carried out in Brazil, a new pandemic epicenter, to analyze how dental care coverage has been affected in public versus private networks, changes in routine and burdens, and how local prevalence of COVID-19 affects dental professionals. Dentists were recruited via email and Instagram®. Responses to a pre-tested questionnaire were collected May 15–24, 2020. COVID-19 case/death counts in the state where respondents work was used to test associations between contextual status and decreases in weekly appointments, fear of contracting COVID-19 at work, and current work status (α = 0.05). Over 10 days, 3,122 responses were received (response rate ~2.1%) from all Brazilian states. Work status was affected for 94%, with less developed regions being more impacted. The pandemic impact on clinical routine was high/very high for 84%, leading to varied changes to clinic infrastructure, personal protective equipment use, and patient screening, as well as increased costs. COVID-19 patients had been seen by 5.3% of respondents; 90% reported fearing contracting COVID-19 at work. Multilevel models showed that greater case and death rates (counted as 1000 cases and 100 deaths per million inhabitants) in one’s state increased the odds of being fearful of contracting the disease (18% and 25%). For each additional 1000 cases/100 deaths, the odds of currently not working or treating only emergencies increased by 36% and 58%. The reduction in patients seen weekly was significantly greater in public (38.7±18.6) than in private clinics (22.5±17.8). This study provides early evidence of three major impacts of the pandemic on dentistry: increasing inequalities due to coverage differences between public and private networks; the adoption of new clinical routines, which are associated with an economic burden for dentists; and associations of regional COVID-19 incidence/mortality with fear of contracting the disease at work.