Can Reduced-Step Polishers Be as Effective as Multiple-Step Polishers in Enhancing Surface Smoothness?

PubMed ID: 27393008Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of various finishing and polishing systems on the final surface roughness of a resin composite. Hypotheses tested were: (1) reduced-step polishing systems are as effective as multiple-step systems on reducing the surface roughness of a resin composite and (2) the number of application steps in an F/P system has no effect on reducing surface roughness. Materials and Methods: Ninety discs of a nano-hybrid resin composite were fabricated and divided into nine groups (n = 10). Except the control, all of the specimens were roughened prior to be polished by: Enamel Plus Shiny, Venus Supra, One-gloss, Sof-Lex Wheels, Super-Snap, Enhance/PoGo, Clearfil Twist Dia, and rubber cups. The surface roughness was measured and the surfaces were examined under scanning electron microscope. Results were analyzed with analysis of variance and Holm-Sidak's multiple comparisons test (p < 0.05). Results: Significant differences were found among the surface roughness of all groups (p < 0.05). The smoothest surfaces were obtained under Mylar strips and the results were not different than Super-Snap, Enhance/PoGo, and Sof-Lex Spiral Wheels. The group that showed the roughest surface was the rubber cup group and these results were similar to those of the One-gloss, Enamel Plus Shiny, and Venus Supra groups. Conclusions: (1) The number of application steps has no effect on the performance of F/P systems. (2) Reduced-step polishers used after a finisher can be preferable to multiple-step systems when used on nanohybrid resin composites. (3) The effect of F/P systems on surface roughness seems to be material-dependent rather than instrument- or system-dependent. Clinical Significance: Reduced-step systems used after a prepolisher can be an acceptable alternative to multiple-step systems on enhancing the surface smoothness of a nanohybrid composite; however, their effectiveness depends on the materials’ properties. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:31–40, 2017). © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Urgency Priority in Kidney Transplantation: Experience in Turkey

WOS: 000357066800007PubMed ID: 26093696Background. In Turkey, according to the directions of National Organ and Tissue Transplant Coordination System, a system has been established since 2008 of urgency priority for kidney transplantation in cases with imminent lack of access for either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. In this study, we compared patient and graft outcomes between patients on the national waiting list having urgency priority for kidney transplantation (UKT) and those having the other kidney from the same deceased donor (control group). Methods. We examined retrospective data of patients, who underwent transplantation under urgency priority allocation in Turkey from 2010 to 2014 and compared that group with other patients receiving kidney transplants from the same deceased donors (control group). Then we compared these patients for early and long-term patient and graft outcomes. Results. Forty-seven patients had UKT, and 40 patients received transplants from the same deceased donors. Mean follow-up of patients after transplantation was 18 12 months. Eight patients with UKT and 4 patients in the control group lost their grafts. At follow-up, 7 patients died in the UKT group, and 4 patients died in the control group. Patient survival in the UKT group was 90% at 1 year and 83% at 2 years, and in the control group was 93% at 1 year and 84% at 2 years (P = .384). Graft survival was 87% at 1 year and 81% at 2 years in UKT, and 91% at both 1 and 2 years in the control group (P = .260). Conclusions. Although patients with UKT showed lower graft and patient survivals than the control group, the difference was statistically nonsignificant. UKT can be an obligatory treatment model for patients with lack of vascular or peritoneal access for dialysis