Restorative Thresholds for Carious Lesions:Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Current evidence supports noninvasive/nonrestorative treatment of “early” carious lesions: those confined to enamel or reaching the enamel-dentin junction. The extent that dentists’ thresholds for intervening restoratively have changed with this evidence is unknown. This systematic review aimed to determine dentists’ and therapists’ current lesion threshold for carrying our restorative interventions in adults/children and primary/permanent teeth. Embase, Medline via PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for observational studies, without language, time, or quality restrictions. Screening and data extraction were independent and in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses with subgroup and meta-regression analysis were performed. Thirty studies, mainly involving dentists, met the inclusion criteria. There was heterogeneity in sampling frames, methods, and scales used to investigate thresholds. The studies spanned 30 y (1983–2014), and sample representativeness and response bias issues were likely to have affected the results. Studies measured what dentists said they would do rather than actually did. Studies represented 17 countries, focusing mainly on adults (n = 17) and permanentteeth (n = 24). For proximal carious lesions confined to enamel (not reaching the enamel-dentin junction), 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15%–28%) of dentists/therapists would intervene invasively. The likelihood of a restorative intervention almost doubled (risk ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.68–2.33) in high caries risk patients. For proximal lesions extending up to the enamel-dentin junction, 47% (95% CI, 39%–55%) of dentists/therapists would intervene restoratively. For occlusal lesions with enamel discoloration/cavitation but no clinical/radiographic dentin involvement, 12% (95% CI, 6%–22%) of dentists/therapists stated they would intervene, increasing to 74% (95% CI,56%–86%) with dentin involvement. There was variance between countries but no significant temporal trend. A significant proportion of dentists/therapists said they would intervene invasively (restoratively) on carious lesions where evidence and clinical recommendations indicate less invasive therapies should be used. There is great need to understand decisions to intervene restoratively and to find implementation interventions that translate research evidence into clinical practice

Effect of temporary cements on the shear bond strength of luting cements

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate, by shear bond strength (SBS) testing, the influence of different types of temporary cements on the final cementation using conventional and self-etching resin-based luting cements. Material and Methods: Forty human teeth divided in two halves were assigned to 8 groups (n=10): I and V (no temporary cementation); II and VI: Ca(OH)2-based cement; III and VII: zinc oxide (ZO)-based cement; IV and VIII: ZO-eugenol (ZOE)-based cement. Final cementation was done with RelyX ARC cement (groups I to IV) and RelyX Unicem cement (groups V to VIII). Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey's test at 5% significance level. RESULTS: Means were (MPa): I - 3.80 (&plusmn;1.481); II - 5.24 (&plusmn;2.297); III - 6.98 (&plusmn;1.885); IV - 6.54 (&plusmn;1.459); V - 5.22 (&plusmn;2.465); VI - 4.48 (&plusmn;1.705); VII - 6.29 (&plusmn;2.280); VIII - 2.47 (&plusmn;2.076). Comparison of the groups that had the same temporary cementation (Groups II and VI; III and VII; IV and VIII) showed statistically significant difference (p<0.001) only between Groups IV and VIII, in which ZOE-based cements were used. The use of either Ca(OH)2-based (Groups II and VI) or ZO-based (Groups III and VII) cements showed no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) for the different luting cements (RelyX TM ARC and RelyX TM Unicem). The groups that had no temporary cementation (Groups I and V) did not differ significantly from each other either (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: When temporary cementation was done with ZO- or ZOE-based cements and final cementation was done with RelyX ARC, there was an increase in the SBS compared to the control. In the groups cemented with RelyX Unicem, however, the use of a ZOE-based temporary cement affected negatively the SBS of the luting agent used for final cementation

Pooled analysis of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89.6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60.6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95 per cent c.i. 0.14 to 0.21, P <0001) or low (363 of 860, 422 per cent; OR 008, 007 to 010, P <0.001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference -94 (95 per cent c.i. -11.9 to -6.9) per cent; P <0001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+121 (+7.0 to +173) per cent; P <0001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0.60, 0.50 to 073; P <0.001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low- and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries.Peer reviewe