Aims:To compare the shear bond strength of sixth generation and seventh generation bonding agents to dentin.Materials and Methods:Eighty human maxillary premolars were reduced to expose flat surface of dentin and divided into four equal groups, which were bonded using following bonding agents: Sixth generation bonding agents, Adper SE Plus and Xeno III and Seventh generation bonding agents, Adper Easy One and Xeno V. Composite cylinders were then built using a plastic mould on these prepared dentinal surfaces. Samples were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and tested for shear bond strength with universal testing machine. Shear force was applied perpendicular to the long axis of composite cylinder at adhesive-tooth interface until debonding occurred. The data so obtained were tabulated and analyzed statistically using independent-samples t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) testResults:The seventh generation adhesives showed significantly higher shear bond strength to dentin compared to sixth generation adhesives (P < 0.01). The highest value of shear bond strength was obtained from Adper Easy One system, while Adper SE Plus gave the lowest shear bond strength values.Conclusions:Seventh generation adhesives are more advantageous than sixth generation adhesives in dentin bonding as it requires less time, fewer steps, and better bond strength.

Our hospital is a referral centre for Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) patients, who as a matter of religious belief refuse transfusions of blood/blood components. We have treated JW patients with dengue fever (DF) and thrombocytopenia without platelet transfusion, without any mortality or major morbidities. We retrospectively compared the duration needed for platelet recovery and duration of hospitalization of DF with thrombocytopenia in those treated with prophylactic platelet transfusion and JW patients who were managed without these. Among JW patients, platelet counts recovered to >50,000 in 2.57 days (Mean) as compared to those who received prophylactic platelet transfusion, who recovered in 4.43 days (P value < 0.0001). They also had significantly less number of days of hospitalization (3.68 days vs 5.13 days, P value < 0.0001). These differences persisted even when a subgroup analysis of patients who had nadir platelet count less than 10,000 were done. Most importantly, none of the patients in either group suffered any significant morbidity or mortality. Prophylactic platelet transfusion in clinically stable DF patients was associated with significant delay in platelet recovery and increased duration of hospitalization, even though was not harmful in terms of morbidity or mortality. Though number of subjects involved in the study was small, this brief report further adds to the current evidence that prophylactic platelet transfusion in clinically stable DF patients with a platelet count more than 10,000/cmm is not indicated.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract