Abstract The aim of this research was to evaluate the influence of MDP (10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate) concentration and application mode of experimental adhesives on microshear bond strength (μSBS) to dentin after storage in distilled water at 37°C for 24h and 6 months. Five experimental adhesives were prepared with: CQ, DABE, BHT, ethanol, HEMA, TEGDMA, Bis-EMA, UDMA, and Bis-GMA. Concentrations of 0 wt%, 3 wt%, 9 wt%, 12 wt% or 15 wt% of MDP were added to their composition. The adhesives were applied to flat dentin surfaces in etch-and-rinse or self-etching modes. Cylindrical molds filled with light-cured composite resin were placed above the dentin. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37oC for 24h or 6 months and submitted to μSBS testing. The adhesives were also submitted to pH analysis. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, three-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α = 5%). All the adhesives used in the etch-and-rinse mode showed significantly higher bond strength than the adhesives applied in the self-etching approach. The 9 wt% adhesive showed the highest bond strength values, and 3 wt% was most stable after storage. A strong negative correlation between MDP concentration and pH was observed. It was concluded that the formulations with low concentrations of MDP (up to 9 wt%) showed better results for bond strength and bond strength degradation over time.

Abstract The objective of this systematic review was to compare the conical internal connection (IC) with the external hexagonal connection (EH) on the occurrence of marginal bone loss (ΔMBL). Different databases were used to carry out the selection of the elected studies. The studies were judged according to the risk of bias as “high”, “low” and “unclear” risk. For the meta-analysis we included only studies that could extract the data of ΔMBL, survival rate (SR) and probing depth (PD). No statistically significant differences were found for ΔMBL data at one, three- and five-year survival rates between implant connections (p <0.05), however statistically significant differences were found for PD between EH and IC implants (1-year follow-up) -0.53 [95%CI -0.82 to -0.24, p = 0.0004]. This present systematic review demonstrated that there are no significant differences between IC and EH implants for both ΔMBL and SR at 1, 3 e 5 years after functional loading, although better PD values were observed for implants pertaining to the IC connections. Considering the high heterogeneity, more well-delineated, randomized clinical trials should be conducted.

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of zirconia copings obtained with different digital scanning methods. A human mandibular first molar was set in a typodont with its adjacent and antagonist teeth and prepared for an all-ceramic crown. Digital impressions were made using an intraoral scanner (3Shape). Polyvinyl siloxane impressions and Type IV gypsum models were also obtained and scanned with a benchtop laboratory scanner (3Shape D700). Ten zirconia copings were fabricated for each group using CAD-CAM technology. The marginal and internal fit of the zirconia copings was assessed by the silicone replica technique. Four sections of each replica were obtained, and each section was evaluated at four points: marginal gap (MG), axial wall (AW), axio-occlusal edge (AO) and centro-occlusal wall (CO), using an image analyzing software. The data were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α = 0.05). They showed statistically significant differences for MG, AO and CO. Regarding MG, intraoral scanning showed lower gap values, whereas gypsum model scanning showed higher gap values. Regarding AO and CO, intraoral digital scanning showed lower gap values. Polyvinyl siloxane impression scanning and gypsum model scanning showed higher gap values and were statistically similar. It can be concluded that intraoral digital scanning provided a lower mean gap value, in comparison with conventional impressions and gypsum casts scanned with a standard benchtop laboratory scanner.