Search

Statement of the Problem: Immediate dentin sealing (IDS) was introduced to overcome the disadvantages of delayed dentin sealing like pollution of dentin tubules, microleakage, and bond strength destruction over time. The effect of IDS on the bond strength of indirect restorations is still debatable. Purpose: This study was conducted to determine the effect of IDS on the bond strength of ceramic restorations to dentin. Materials and Method: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database under the registration number CRD420202014 27. MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest databases were searched until January 2021 and updated in January 2022. Worldcat.org and Opengrey.eu, ProQuest dissertation and thesis, and Google Scholar were searched to explore the grey literature. The in vitro studies evaluating the bond strength of ceramic restoration to dentin with and without IDS were included. Seven criteria were assessed to evaluate the risk of bias in the study. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.3. The inverse variance method was used to determine the mean difference of micro-tensile bond strength (µTBS) and shear bond strength (SBS). Results: A total of 10 studies (20 datasets) were included in the meta-analysis. Regarding the µTBS analysis, IDS had a significantly higher bond strength than Delayed Dentin Sealing (DDS) (MD:1.16, 95%CI:0.28_2.03, I² =0%). However, no significant difference was found between them in the SBS analysis (MD:0.25, 95%CI: -0.56-1.06, I² =96%). All studies were categorized to have a moderate or high risk of bias. Conclusion: Most in vitro evidence showed favorable results for the effect of IDS on the bond strength and durability of indirect restorations. The adhesive system and the type of ceramic and its treatment before cementation are determining factors. Due to the heterogeneity of the outcomes and studies with a moderate/high risk of bias, the quality of the evidence was low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Successful management of pain during endodontic treatment is essential for both patients and dentists. Achieving adequate pulp anesthesia in mandibular molars is a significant concern for patients with irreversible pulpitis during endodontic treatment. The increased sensitization of nociceptors due to inflammation decreases the success of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). The main focus is on reducing inflammation before delivery of local anesthesia to increase the success of anesthetic drugs. This umbrella review aimed to revise, qualify and summarize the existing body of evidence on the effect of premedication on IANB in patients with irreversible pulpitis. A literature search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) with no date restriction until September 2021 to identify the relevant studies. All the cross references of the selected studies and grey literature were also screened. Four systematic reviews assessing the effect of premedication on the success of IANB were selected. A conclusion was drawn that premedication with >400 mg of ibuprofen can positively affect the success of IANB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of the present review was to identify the effect of the post-space preparation (PSP) timing (immediate or delayed) on endodontically treated teeth. Methods: All studies in any language that compared the effect of immediate versus delayed PSP on the outcomes of an endodontically treated tooth were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, ProQuest, WorldCat, and Google Scholar databases by two independent researchers until February 12, 2022. Studies assessing merely the immediate or delayed PSP were excluded. A descriptive analysis was performed to evaluate the study design and the characteristics of the included studies. Results: The initial search yielded 2612 records, of which 68 were included. Except for one randomized controlled trial, all were in vitro. The evaluated variables were apical/coronal microleakage (n = 48/n = 1), post-bond strength (n = 8), bacterial infiltration (n = 7), presence of voids (n = 3), apical extrusion and residual of filling material (n = 1), and post-operative pain (n = 1). The number of publications had steady growth per year and fast growth per decade. "Post-space preparation" was the most popular keywords. Conclusions: The present review highlights the need for further investigations due to the various design of studies, controversial results, and an inadequate number of randomized controlled trials. Trial registration: Retrospectively registered. Open Science (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2YTM6). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. In recent years, several controversial reports of the correlation between altmetric score and citations have been published (range: -0.2 to 0.8). We conducted a meta-analysis to provide an in-depth statistical analysis of the correlation between altmetric score and number of citations in the field of health sciences. Methods. Three online databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed) were systematically searched, without language restrictions, from the earliest publication date available through February 29, 2020, using the keywords "altmetric," "citation," and "correlation." Grey literature was also searched via WorldCat, Open Grey, and Google Scholar (first 100 hits only). All studies in the field of health sciences that reported on this correlation were included. Effect sizes were calculated using Fisher's z transformation of correlations. Subgroup analyses based on citation source and sampling methods were performed. Results. From 27 included articles, 8 articles comprise several independent studies. The total sample size was 9,943 articles comprised of 35 studies. The overall pooled effect size was 0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.26). Bivariate partial prediction of interaction between effect size, citation source, and sampling method showed a greater effect size with Web of Science compared with Scopus and Dimensions. Egger's regression showed a marginally nonsignificant publication bias (p = 0.055), and trim-and-fill analysis estimated one missing study in this meta-analysis. Conclusion. In health sciences, currently altmetric score has a positive but weak correlation with number of citations (pooled correlation = 0.19 , 95% C.I 0.12 to 0.25). We emphasize on future examinations to assess changes of correlation pattern between altmetric score and citations over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]