The etiology of exposure determines pulpal response, making it crucial to distinguish between mechanical and carious exposures. The carious exposure is presumed to be accompanied by severe inflammation, which makes the prognosis of treatment unpredictable. Biomaterials can be used especially in cases with carious pulp exposures.

Significance of Study:Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine (calcium silicate-based materials) have great importance in dentistry. There is no study comparing the bond strength of Biodentine and MTA for composite, compomer, and compomer or resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC). Although many advantages of Biodentine over MTA; in this study, MTA has shown better shear bond strength (SBS) to restorative materials.Aim:Recently, a variety of calcium silicate-based materials are often used for pulp capping, perforation repair, and endodontic therapies. After those treatment procedures, teeth are commonly restored with composite resin, (RMGIC materials in pediatric dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the SBS of composite resin (Filtek™ Z250; 3M ESPE, USA), compomer (Dyract XP; LD Caulk/Dentsply, USA), and resin-modified glass ionomer (Photac-Fil Quick Aplicap; 3M ESPE, USA) to white MTA and Biodentine.Materials and Methods:Ninety acrylic cylindrical blocks were prepared and divided into two groups (n = 45). The acrylic blocks were randomly allocated into 3 subgroups; Group-1A: MTA + composite (Filtek™ Z250), Group-1B: MTA + compomer (Dyract XP), Group-1C: MTA + RMGIC (Photac-Fil Quick Aplicap), Group-2A: Biodentine + composite, Group-2B: Biodentine + compomer, Group-2C: Biodentine + RMGIC. The specimens were mounted in Universal Testing Machine. A crosshead speed 1 mm/min was applied to each specimen using a knife-edge blade until the bond between the MTA/Biodentine and restorative material failed. Failure modes of each group were evaluated under polarized light microscope at ×40 magnification.Results:There was no statistically significant difference between MTA + Composite resin with MTA + Compomer; and MTA + RMGIC with Biodentine + RMGIC (P > 0.05). There were statistically significant differences between other groups (P < 0.05).Conclusions:The results of the present study displayed that although many advantages of Biodentine over MTA; MTA has shown better SBS to compomer and composite resin materials than Biodentine.

Due to favourable biological and physical properties, calcium silicate‐based cements (CSCs) are biocompatible materials used widely for vital pulp therapies. Sealing efficacy between the adhesive system and CSC determines the clinical success of treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of CSC to composite resin with different adhesive systems and to analyse the CSC–composite interface. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (ProRoot MTA; Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), Biodentine (Septodont, Saint‐Maur‐des‐Fossés, France) and NeoMTA Plus (Avalon Biomed Inc., Bradenton, FL) samples (n = 90) were placed in the cavities and divided into three subgroups according to the adhesive family (n = 10). SBSs were measured using a universal testing machine. The interfaces were examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (×1000). NeoMTA Plus showed significantly higher SBS values than MTA and Biodentine (P < 0.0001). The application of total‐etch adhesive system over Biodentine and NeoMTA Plus provided the statistically highest bond strength (P < 0.05). However, when the SBS values of MTA subgroups were compared, different adhesive families applied over MTA did not make a significant difference in SBS values (P > 0.05). Based on SEM analyses, the specimens exhibit no gaps, cracks or delamination within the adhesive layer, which indicates a good adhesion between the CSC–composite interface in all subgroups. In conclusion, the different adhesive families used over CSC did not influence interfacial gap formation.

Introduction Performing dental procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic carries certain risks in terms of cross contamination. Objectives To evaluate the effect of specialty education and work environment on of dentists’ behavior, awareness and attitude regarding cross-infection control in COVID-19 pandemic. Design The study population consisted of Turkish dentists who work in private clinics, public clinics and university hospitals. Demographics of the participants, awareness of COVID-19 and clinical measures taken against cross-infection were evaluated with an online survey. Between 10th-20th of November 2020, 1,000 surveys were e-mailed to the dentists. Results A total 454 dentists answered the survey; 29.3% of the participants deliver only urgent care, 59.9% both urgent and routine treatments and personal protective equipment (PPE) were used at rates varying between 75.5% and 98.4%. 90.6% of the dentists stated that they were worried about aerosol generating dental procedures and there was no difference between sexes in this regard (p=0.119). The majority of participants, mainly specialists (p=0.16), applied strict cross-infection control methods during the COVID-19 pandemic (77.2%). The rate of PPE use was statistically higher by women compared to men (p=0.025) and by specialists compared to others (p=0.04). There was a weak positive correlation between level of PPE use and expertise (r=0.121, p=0.01). Conclusions Although participants' knowledge about the symptoms of COVID-19, transmission routes and following the guidelines were at a sufficient level, dental specialists apply protection equipment procedures more strictly. Although participants were concerned about dental practices that create microbial aerosols during the pandemic period, still they continue their dental routines using high levels of PPE and taking extra clinical precautions to avoid cross-infection.

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the educational concerns and awareness level among dental hygiene students during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Materials and Methods A questionnaire, created via Google Forms, was sent electronically to 240 dental hygiene students from Turkey, of which 223 replied to the survey. The questionnaire was divided into 4 parts and consisted of 24 close‐ended questions. Results The main symptoms of COVID‐19 were correctly recognized by 71% of the students, and 40.2% of the students were aware of the transmission routes. Of all, 77.1% of the students expressed fear of getting infected, 96.9% believed that they would more likely get infected while performing dental procedures, and 91% believed that dental hygienists’ cross‐contamination risk was high. Furthermore, 69.5% of the students stated that their undergraduate education process was negatively affected, 59.6% appreciated ongoing online education, and 31.8% wanted face‐to‐face clinical internships. Conclusions Although most of the students were aware of the transmission routes and preventive measures of COVID‐19, concerns regarding disease transmission among them remain. Students appreciated the ongoing online education and believed that face‐to‐face education is risky during this current pandemic. However, they believe that this process can adversely affect their professional knowledge and especially practical skills. A balance must be struck between sustaining an effective dental hygiene education process and containing the spread of COVID‐19.