Objective To determine the effect of adhesive strategy (total etch or self-etch) of universal adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions. Data source A search was made in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Web Of Science, Open Gray, Clinical Registries. Data selection Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials, studies on non-carious cervical lesions restored using Universal Adhesives, and studies in which universal adhesives have been used in total etch and self -etch strategies were included in this systematic review. Data extraction A total of 17 articles were included in the systematic review and 13 in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the clinical performance of NCCLs in terms of retention, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, secondary caries and post-operative sensitivity at 18, 24, 36 month follow-up using USPHS as well as FDI criteria, separately. Data synthesis Overall there was no significant difference between total etch and self etch adhesive strategies for any of the five outcome measures using either the FDI or the USPHS criteria. p > 0.05, 95% CI, I2 value of 0%. A strongly suspected publication bias in the retention domain was seen at 18 month follow up under FDI criteria. Conclusion Most universal adhesives show acceptable clinical performance. There is no significant effect of the adhesive strategy of universal adhesives on their clinical performance according to the results of our meta-analysis.
Calcifications in the pulp space pose a challenge to most dental practitioners. Although they are a common finding, their management is not done appropriately in many cases. This leads to numerous iatrogenic mishaps like ledging, gouging, perforations, etc. Hence, adequate knowledge about pulp calcifications and their proper management is necessary for successful endodontics. Such detailed knowledge is usually achieved only during post graduation in endodontics. General practitioners may or may not have the sufficient knowledge and skill to manage such cases. This survey aims at comparing the knowledge of pulp calcifications, and the attitude and practice of their management between general practitioners and endodontists.
Controversy exists as to the completion of endodontic procedures in a single visit or in multiple visits. Analyzing the frequency and distribution of single and multiple visit endodontics carried out based on demographic data can give us an insight towards the success of the treatment. This retrospective study aimed to analyse the frequency and distribution of maxillary teeth treated by single or multiple visit endodontics in an Indian population. Data for the study were collected retrospectively. Patient records of 86000 patients that reported to the institution between June 2019 and March 2020 were reviewed. Excel sheet tabulations were made involving age, gender, tooth number and number of visits. Descriptive statistics were applied using SPSS software. Association between each demographic data and the number of visits was analyzed by Chi-Square Test. A total of 4493 RCT procedures were done, of which 48.6% were single visit procedures and 51.4% were multi-visit procedures. The age group of 18-30 years (31.7%) and 31-40 years (29.3%) underwent the highest number of procedures, followed by 41-50 years (21%) and >50 years (18%). 51% 0f the procedures were done in males and 49% in females. Statistically, a significant association was observed between age, gender and tooth with a type of treatment (single or multiple visit endodontics), p<0.05. A statistically significant association between age, gender and tooth was observed with the type of treatment (single and multiple visit endodontics). Younger age group, males and maxillary central incisors showed the highest predilection to multi-visit endodontics. In general, more multi-visit procedures than single visit procedures were done in maxillary teeth.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.