This study evaluated the effect of the incorporation of bioactive nanofibers in desensitizing agents on dentin permeability. Sixty disks of dentin were randomly distributed in four groups (n = 15). Distribution was based on the desensitizing agents, fluoride varnish and self-etching adhesive, and the presence of nanofibers: C (self-etching adhesive Clearfil SE Bond), CN (Clearfil SE Bond with 1% nanofiber), D (Duraphat varnish), and DN (Duraphat varnish with 1% nanofiber). Dentin permeability was determined using hydraulic conductivity. For a qualitative analysis, confocal laser microscopy and scanning electron microscopy were performed. The C group showed the lowest hydraulic conductance (Lp%) (89.33), while the DN group showed the highest Lp% (116.06). No statistical significance was observed in the Lp% values in all groups after the treatment and 6% citric acid challenge (p > 0.239). In the images, the CN group presented a higher superficial and intratubular deposition. In addition, this group presented a more homogeneous dentin surface and wide occlusion of dentinal tubules than the other treatments. Despite there being no statistical differences among the treatments employed, the images showed that the CN group presented a higher surface and intratubular deposition compared to the other treatments, even after the acid challenge.

Key words: Ceramics; Shear strength; Dental air abrasion; Confocal microscopy; Aluminum oxide

Aim: The aim of this meta analysis was to evaluate the influence of the processing method on the marginal and internal gaps of lithium disilicate inlays/onlays. Settings and Design: A systematic literature review was conducted using the PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. This review was registered on the PROSPERO platform. Materials and Methods: The studies were selected according to the marginal and internal gaps of two different fabrication methods for lithium disilicate (milled and pressed). Statistical Analysis Used: The meta analysis was performed based on the Mantel–Haenszel and inverse variance methods, using the random effects model and a 95% confidence interval. Results: From all databases, 127 studies were identified. Four in vitro studies were included in the qualitative analysis and three in the meta analysis. Moreover, 197 restorations were evaluated (103 pressed and 94 milled). During the evaluation of only the internal gap, there was a statistically significant difference favoring the pressed technique (P = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in the analyses of the marginal gap (P = 0.530) and the total gap (P = 0.450). Conclusion: Both the techniques provided acceptable marginal and total gaps, although the pressed technique revealed a more favorable internal adaptation than the milled onlays/inlays.