Search

Aim: To investigate the influence of deproteinization and moisture condition (wet vs. dry) on the bond strength and micromorphology of resin-dentin bonding interfaces. Methods: Dentin surfaces were etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 s and rinsed with water. Four groups (n = 10) were tested: WET: dentin was left visibly moist; DRY: dentin was dried with compressed air; WET-D: dentin was deproteinized for 60 s using 10% NaOCl solution and left moist; DRY-D: dentin was deproteinized and dried. Prime&Bond 2.1 adhesive was applied and the teeth were restored with composite resin. Microtensile test was carried out after 24 h, and failure modes classified under magnification. Data were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (P < 0.05). The bonding micromorphology was analyzed by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Results: The group DRY showed significantly lower bond strength (P < 0.05) than the other groups, which were similar to each other (P > 0.05). Adhesive failures were predominant. Analysis of micromorphology showed formation of a collagen-resin hybrid layer only for the non-deproteinized groups. Adhesive penetration into the dentinal tubules was deeper for the DRY-D compared to the WETD group. Conclusion: The bond strength was not dependent on the moisture condition and a more homogeneous hybridization was obtained when dentin was deproteinized

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether a master and PhD thesis in Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry can be based on a systematic review (SR). Methods: In this cross‐sectional study, we surveyed the coordinators of Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry using a self‐administered questionnaire including questions about whether an SR meets requirements for approval of a master or PhD thesis, instructions regarding how to use an SR as the method for a master or PhD thesis, and reasons and barriers that SRs were not recognized as acceptable for a master or PhD thesis. The responses were analyzed descriptively, and tables and graphs were created to summarize the data. Results: Among 101 graduate programs invited to participate in the study, 38 (37.6%) returned the questionnaire. Over three‐quarters of surveyed programs (n = 30, 78.1%) answered that SRs, in whole or in part, meet the criteria for a master or PhD thesis. Likewise, most programs answered that a master or PhD thesis could be exclusively based on an SR (n = 28, 73.7%). The same number of programs pointed out that one possible reason for not recognizing SRs as a master or PhD thesis is either the lack of SR expertise among committee members (n = 28, 73.7%) or the lack of adequate training of candidates in SR methodology (n = 26, 68.4%). Conclusions: SRs are well accepted as a master or PhD thesis by Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry. Educational initiatives should be encouraged to promote understanding of SR methodology and increase acceptance among graduate programs worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]