Comparison of the Shear Bond Strength of Treated and Untreated Brackets on Treated and Untreated Enamel Surfaces in Rebonding

Aim and Objective: This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of treated and untreated brackets on treated and untreated enamel surfaces in rebonding. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the SBS of the treated and untreated rebonded brackets on treated and untreated enamel surfaces. Materials and Methods: Fifty extracted premolars were bonded by the same conventional bonding method and then debonded, and the SBS of each tooth was recorded. The debonded brackets and teeth were divided into two equal groups. In the first group, the debonded brackets were recycled by direct flaming followed by alumina oxide sandblasting, and the teeth were treated with a tungsten carbide bur applied with a low-speed hand piece. In the second group, neither the teeth surfaces nor the bracket bases were treated. Rebonding was performed followed by debonding, and the SBS of each tooth was recorded again. Results: Both rebonded bracket groups showed lower SBS results than that of the first debonding tests. A statistically significant difference was found within the untreated bracket groups between the first and second debonding test (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The rebonding of treated enamel surfaces and treated bracket bases showed higher SBS values compared to the untreated ones. The null hypothesis was rejected

CAD/CAM single-retainer monolithic zirconia ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial dentures bonded with two different resin cements: Up to 40 months clinical results of a randomized-controlled pilot study

PURPOSE: This pilot study was part of a larger study planned for the future which aimed to compare the clinical success of two different resin cements used in the cementation of CAD/CAM single-retainer monolithic zirconia ceramic resin-bonded fixed dentures (RBFPDs). METHODS: Twenty-four RBFPDs were fabricated with monolithic zirconia (Katana™ Zirconia HT, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc, Tokyo, Japan). Panavia F2.0 (PF2.0; n = 12) and Panavia V5 (PV5; n = 12) were used for cementation. The survival period was defined as the time when the restoration was placed in the mouth and lasted until an irreparable damage occurred. The repairable failures were identified as relative and irreparable failures were identified as absolute failure. The survival rate of the RBFPDs was determined by the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The mean observation times of the PF2.0 group and the PV5 group were 40.45 ± 6.15 months and 40.18 ± 6.41 months, respectively. Four failures occurred in the PF2.0 group. No failure was observed in the PV5 group. The curves of survival rate (PF2.0 = 80%, PV5 = 100%) showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.031), although success rate (PF2.0 = 66.7%, PV5 = 100%) showed statistically significant difference (p = 0.317). CONCLUSION: Up to 40 months mean follow-up period, performance of RBFPDs bonded with PV5 was better than with PF2.0. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: For clinicians, it is a matter of hesitation to apply single-retainer RBFPDs. This study contains results of 40 months (minimum 32, maximum 50.47 months) clinical follow-ups of single-retainer RBFPDs. These results will enlighten clinicians about the clinical success of the resin cement type for single-retainer monolithic zirconia ceramic RBFPDs

The availability and characteristics of patient-focused YouTube videos related to oral hygiene instruction

Introduction: YouTube is a popular social media platform that is being increasingly used for the distribution of healthcare-related information. To date, there appear to be no published studies assessing the quality of oral hygiene instruction provided by YouTube videos. Objective: To assess the availability, quality and accuracy of patient-focused YouTube videos aiming to provide oral hygiene instruction. Method: YouTube videos meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated for quality and information accuracy using an eight-item, evidence-based checklist relating to important aspects in the prevention of caries and periodontal disease. Results: Fifty-two relevant videos were included; 20 videos (38.5%) were produced by lay people (social media influencers and bloggers) who had no professional qualifications. None of the included videos contained accurate information relating to all eight items of the evidence-based checklist. Seven videos contained none of the information from the checklist. Numerous videos contained health advice which was not scientifically sound. Conclusion: The results of this study highlight that currently available YouTube videos may not contain evidence-based information relating to oral hygiene instruction. There are also concerns regarding the lack of regulation and quality assurance processes in the development of healthcare-related YouTube videos. Currently, clinicians should be cautious when advising patients to utilise YouTube as a source of information regarding oral health