Composite resin is universally used for posterior teeth restorations. Fibers have been suggested for the mechanical improvement of the restorations. This study assessed the fracture resistance of class II fiber-reinforced composite restorations and compared it with the fracture resistance of three control groups: (1) healthy teeth, (2) non-fiber-reinforced restorations and (3) unrestored cavities. A search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar from 15 May to 12 June 2023. Only in vitro studies from the last 10 years were included for this systematic analysis. This study was registered in the PROSPERO database, it followed PRISMA guidelines and the risk of bias was assessed using the QUIN tool. Fracture resistance median values, in Newtons (N), were calculated for the experimental and control groups (95% confidence interval). For pairwise comparison, nonparametric tests (p < 0.05) were applied. Twenty-four in vitro studies met the inclusion criteria. The fracture resistance of the experimental group was 976.0 N and differed (p < 0.05) from all controls. The experimental group showed lower values of fracture resistance than healthy teeth (1459.9 N; p = 0.048) but higher values than non-fiber-reinforced restorations (771.0 N; p = 0.008) and unrestored cavities (386.6 N; p < 0.001). In vitro systematic outcomes evidenced that glass and/or polyethylene fibers improved the fracture resistance of composite restorations.

The pursuit of less time-consuming procedures led to the development of high-power light-curing-units (LCU) to light-cure dental-resin-based-materials. This review aims to describe high-power light-emitting-diode (LED)-LCUs, by a bibliometric systematization of in vitro and in vivo studies. The research-question, by PICO model, aimed to assess the current knowledge on dentistry-based high-power LED-LCUs by analyzing to what extent their use can promote adverse events on materials and patients’ oral condition when compared to low-power LED-LCUs, on daily dental practice. PubMed and B-on database search focused on high-power (≥2000 mW/cm²) LED-LCUs outputs. Studies assessing performance of high-power LED-LCUs for light-curing dental-resin-based-materials were included. From 1822 screened articles, 21 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two marketed units with high levels of radiant emittance (≥2000 mW/cm² up to 6000 mW/cm²) were identified. Most output values vary on 2000–3000 mW/cm². The highest output found was 6000 mW/cm², in FlashMax^™P3. Reports suggest that light-curing protocols with lower emittance irradiance and longer exposure outperforms all other combination, however in some clinical procedures high-power LED-LCUs are advocated when compared to low-power LED-LCUs. Moreover, long time exposures and over-curing can be dangerous to the biological vital pulp, and other oral tissues. Evidence showing that high-power LCUs are the best clinical option is still very scarce.

This prospective, double-blind, six-arm parallel randomised controlled trial aimed to compare the performance of two universal adhesives (UAs) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), using the FDI criteria, and analysed if participants/NCCLs’ characteristics influenced the outcome. Thirty-eight 18- to 65-year-old participants were seeking routine dental care at a university clinic. At baseline, 210 NCCLs were randomly allocated to six groups (35 restorations’ each). The UAs tested were FuturabondU (FBU) and AdheseUniversal (ADU) applied in either etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) modes. FuturabondDC (FBDC) in SE and in SE with selective enamel etching (SE-EE) modes were controls. NCCLs were restored with AdmiraFusion. The analysis included nonparametric tests, Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests (α = 0.05). At 2-years, of 191 restorations, ten were missed due to retention loss (all groups, p > 0.05). FBDC (p = 0.037) and FBU (p = 0.041) performed worse than ADU in SE mode. FBDC and FBU also showed worse functional success rate (p = 0.012, p = 0.007, respectively) and cumulative retention rates (p = 0.022, p = 0.012, respectively) than ADU. Some participants/NCCLs’ characteristics influenced (p < 0.05) the outcomes. FBU did not perform as well as ADU, especially in SE mode and due to functional properties. Participants’ age and NCCLs’ degree of dentin sclerosis and internal shape angle influenced FBU performance.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically changed all aspects of life. In the context of clinical dental care, a significant number of new recommendations have been implemented to comply with public health policies, ensuring the safety of dental care professionals, staff, and patients and preventing further spread of the virus. This article is the third in a series of 3 on the management of COVID-19 in clinical dental care and presents a set of recommendations and standards to be implemented in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. These include remote contact with all patients for triage and guidance before scheduling a clinical visit to know if they have COVID symptoms or are positive for COVID, if they belong to a risk group, and if there is a suggestion that aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) will be required during their visit. It also reviews additional precautionary measures in the waiting room and reception area, where the environment is reorganised to protect patients and clinical staff, avoiding situations that could result in cross contamination. The dental office operates under a strict set of guidelines, namely, use of personal protective equipment by professionals, contact with patients, a strategy to avoid aerosol-generating procedures, as well as disinfection procedures for the dental office before, during, and after each patient visit. The implementation of these protocols to mitigate cross infection and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the dental office will help improve safety and restore the confidence required to provide dental care to patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adhesive resins with guided application protocols have been developed with the main goal of reducing the number of clinical steps. Universal Adhesives (UA) can be applied with both Self-Etch (SE) or Etch-and-Rinse (ER) adhesion strategies. This review aims to evaluate the bond strength of UA, applied to dental tissues, by a systematic bibliometric review of in vitro studies. The research question, through the PICO model, aimed to assess the current knowledge of the immediate and long-term bond strength of UA, applied with a direct restorative technique. PubMed and ScienceDirect database searches focused on the bond resistance of UA applied with the ER and SE strategies. Studies assessing shear bond strength and microtensile bond strength, in both enamel and dentin, were included. From 1109 screened articles, 12 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The bond strength of UA to enamel showed better results with the ER approach, while the adhesion strategy did not significantly affect the bond strength of UA to dentin. Evidence from in vitro studies has tended to suggest that the use of the SE adhesion approach seems to be a better choice to improve the bond strength to the dentin. The selective enamel etching is advisable when applied with the SE adhesion approach to optimize the UA bond strength to the enamel.