Repair bond strength of bulk-fill composites:influence of different primers and direction of debonding stress

Abstract Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different adhesion primers on the repair bond strength of bulk-fill resin composite and short-term hydrolytic stability of the repair interface before and after accelerated aging. In addition, direction of debonding stress was examined. Materials and methods: Bulk-fill substrates were aged in water for 14 days at 37 °C. Smooth resin composite surfaces were prepared for the substrates with a superfine grinding paper (FEPA #500, #1200, #2000). Test specimens were produced by attaching bulk-fill composite to the substrate surfaces, using three different primer/bonding systems. Specimens were aged 24 h at 37 °C in water, or thermal cycled (5–55 °C/5,000 cycles). Subsequently, shear bond strength and micro-tensile bond strength were evaluated. In total there were 60 specimens for the shear bond strength and 60 specimens for the micro-tensile bond strength measurements (30 stored in water 24 h, 30 thermal cycled, n = 10 in each primer/bonding mode). Results: The mean shear bond strength was 9.1–13.1 MPa after 24 h water storage and 6.9–10.7 MPa after thermal cycling. The mean micro-tensile bond strength was 28.7–45.8 MPa after 24 h water storage and 22.7–37.9 MPa after thermal cycling. Conclusion: The Ceramic primer (silane containing) seems to perform better than the three-step etch and rinse adhesive or the Composite primer. Shear-type stress had an adverse effect on the repair bond strength of bulk-fill resin composites

RoBDEMAT: A risk of bias tool and guideline to support reporting of pre-clinical dental materials research and assessment of systematic reviews

International audienceObjectives: To develop a risk of bias tool for pre-clinical dental materials research studies that aims to support reporting of future investigations and improve assessment in systematic reviews.Methods: A four-stage process following EQUATOR network recommendations was followed, which included project launch, literature review, Delphi process and the tool finalization. With the support of the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) and the Dental Materials Group of the International Association for Dental Research (DMG-IADR), a total of 26 expert stakeholders were included in the development and Delphi vote of the initial proposal. The proposal was built using data gathered from the literature review stage. During this stage, recent systematic reviews featuring dental materials research, and risk of bias tools found in the literature were comprehensively scanned for bias sources. The experts thus reached a consensus for the items, domains and judgement related to the tool, allowing a detailed guide for each item and corresponding signalling questions.Results: The tool features nine items in total, spread between 4 domains, pertaining to the following types of bias: bias related to planning and allocation (D1), specimen preparation (D2), outcome assessment (D3) and data treatment and outcome reporting (D4). RoBDEMAT, as presented, features signalling questions and a guide that can be used for RoB judgement. Its use as a checklist is preferred over a final summary score.Conclusion: RoBDEMAT is the first risk of bias tool for pre-clinical dental materials research, supported and developed by a broad group of expert stakeholders in the field, validating its future use.Clinical significance: This new tool will contribute the study field by improving the scientific quality and rigour of dental materials research studies and their systematic reviews. Such studies are the foundation and support of future clinical research and evidence-based decisions

RoBDEMAT: A risk of bias tool and guideline to support reporting of pre-clinical dental materials research and assessment of systematic reviews

10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104350Journal of Dentistry127104350-10435