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.

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.

Aim: Compare clinical performance and success/retention rates of two multi-mode (MM) adhesives, applied in self-etch (SE) or etch-and-rinse (ER) modes, with SE-all-in-one adhesive (SE/SE with enamel etching) in NCCL restorations at one-year follow-up. Material and methods: Prospective, double-blind RCT approved by the University Fernando Pessoa and the National-Clinical-Research-Ethics Committees (CEIC-20150305), ClinicalTrials.gov registered (NCT02698371), in 38 participants with 210 restorations (AdmiraFusion^®) randomly allocated to six groups (Adhesives_Adhesion mode), each with 35 restorations: G1-Control Futurabond^®DC_SE; G2-Control Futurabond^®DC_SE with enamel etching; G3-Futurabond^®U_ER; G4-Futurabond^®U_SE; G5-Adhese^®Universal_ER; G6-Adhese^®Universal_SE. Restorations evaluated at baseline and one-year by three calibrated examiners (ICC ≥0.952) using FDI criteria and statistical analysis with nonparametric tests (alpha = 0.05). Results: At one-year recall 36 participants, 199 restorations were available for examination; five (2.5%) restorations (G1 n = 2; G2, G3, G4 n = 1) were lost due to retention (p > .05); G1 showed less satisfying marginal adaptation (p < .05) than G2 and MM adhesives groups, particularly G6. Overall success rates (p > .05) were: 93.9% (G1), 97.0% (G2; G3; G4) and 100.0% (G5; G6). Conclusions: MM adhesives (Futurabond^®U and Adhese^®Universal) showed similar and acceptable performance/success rates but also better clinical outputs than the SE-all-in-one adhesive (Futurabond^®DC), particularly in SE mode. Success and retention rates were similar and not dependent on materials or adhesion modes.

Background/Objectives: To assess and compare the knowledge of and attitudes toward erosive tooth wear (ETW) among university students at the Portuguese University Fernando Pessoa (UFP). Methods: Cross-sectional, prospective pilot study approved by the UFP-Ethics Committee for a bilingual (English and Portuguese) online self-administered questionnaire displayed to all UFP students of the 2023–2024 academic year. Two groups were recruited, dental students (DSs) and non-medical students (NMSs), based on a convenience sample of 344 students. Participants voluntarily answered demographic questions, 15 true/false/do not know questions between knowledge of ETW, and 10 positive statements to score the attitude toward ETW based on a 5-point Likert scale. Differences in scores for DSs and NMSs groups by non-parametric tests and the correlation between knowledge of and attitudes by the Pearson coefficient were considered significant for p < 0.05. Results: A total of 251 (72.9%) students participated, but only 245 (71.2%) fulfilled the survey. The knowledge and attitude scores of the DSs (Md = 12.0; IQR 11.0–13.0 and Md = 43.0; IQR 40.0–48.0) were higher (p < 0.001; p = 0.019) than those of NMSs (Md = 8.0; IQR 6.0–10.0 and Md = 41.0; IQR 38.0–46.0). The attitudes score showed similar (p > 0.05) results for gender, age, nationality, and curricular year. Moderate level of knowledge was higher (p < 0.001) for DSs (Md = 12.0, IQR 11.0–12.0) than for NMSs (Md = 10.0, IQR 9.0–10.0) students. DSs and NMSs revealed differences in attitude level distribution (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This survey highlighted the need for knowledge on ETW among NMSs, but especially the high need for measures to promote more positive attitudes toward ETW among all university students, DSs, and NMSs. It provided valuable insights into the demographic characteristics, response rate, knowledge, and attitude scores of ETW with the implementation of multicenter designs applied to similar populations being important for future research.

Background: This study aimed to assess the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination, and immune status among a population, both Dentists and University Professors, within a clinical setting at one and at 12 months after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A cross-sectional study involving 47 professionals (aged 27–52) was conducted in the University Fernando Pessoa. Participants completed an online survey on SARS-CoV-2 infection status and vaccination, received and provided plasma samples for serological analysis. The protocol was approved by the UFP-Ethics Committee. Anti-S1-RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibody titration values (AU/mL) were measured, by enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA), with reactive immunoglobulins (Ig) seropositivity for values ≥1 AU/mL. Results: SARS-CoV-2 infection rate increased from 8.5% in July 2021 to 48.9% in June 2022, with 8.5% experiencing reinfection. Vaccination rate was 91.5% by July 2021 and increased slightly to 93.6% by June 2022; 72.3% of the sample received a third dose. IgG seropositivity increased from 91.5% to 95.7% in June 2022. After one-year, significant associations were found between IgG seropositivity and both participant’s age (p = 0.009; <50 years) and vaccine doses (p = 0.003; 1–3 doses) received. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, vaccination, and IgG seropositivity rates were high and increased over one year. The age and vaccination status were associated with the immunity status at 12th month follow-up. Findings highlight variability in IgG seroprevalence due to multiple influencing factors, which justifies future studies.