Search

Objective: to evaluate the different bonding strategies for repairing aged resin composite restorations. Materials and Methods: The review was reported according to PRISMA Statement and registered in the Open Science Framework (DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/WZTGS). Two reviewers performed a literature search across Embase (758), Pubmed (1244), Scopus (4300), The Cochrane library (128), and Web of Science (2538) databases. The risk of bias was assessed according to random sequence generation, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, coefficient of variation, and other bias. Results: Forty-four in vitro studies with different repair strategies on aged resin composite substrates were included from 1990 up to July 2022 which evaluated superficial treatment using shear, flexural, tensile, and bond strength tests. The most frequent treatments were diamond bur and air abrasion. Meta-analysis showed an overall effect significant to diamond bur (shear test; p = 0.02), air abrasion (shear; p = 0.009; flexural, p = 0.003; tensile; p = 0.004 tests), and to phosphoric acid (tensile test, p < 0.00001). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, strategies for improving bond to aged composites may consider better bond using air abrasion or diamond burs, and surface etching with phosphoric followed by the application of an adhesive system. Clinical Significance: This review presents the best treatments for performing the repair on aged resin composite, as guidance for clinical studies to improve emphasis on these findings, with the aim of creating a protocol that will enable dentists to promote minimally invasive treatments. Clinical Significance: This review presents the best treatments for performing repair with resin composite, as guidance for clinical studies to improve emphasis on these findings, with the aim of creating a protocol that will enable dentists to promote minimally invasive treatments.

The main cause of unsuccess in endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is due to bacterial recontamination. The placement of an intraorifice barrier (IOB) has been proposed for preventing this event in cases that the restoration is in an inadequate condition, enhancing the possibilities for predictable long-term success in endodontic therapy. Objectives. To evaluate through a systematic review and meta-analysis if it would be necessary to place an IOB in ETT. Materials and Methods. The present review is in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 Statement and is registered in the Open Science Framework. Two blinded reviewers carried out a comprehensive search in four databases up to July 10th, 2021: MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were the ones which evaluated the use of an IOB in ETT in reducing microleakage with any material of choice and with any methods employed. Only in vitro studies published in English were included. Results. A total of thirty in vitro studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and seven of those were included in the quantitative analyses evaluating the following materials: bioceramic cement, glass-ionomer cement (GIC), and resin-based composite (RBC). Most of the included studies placed an IOB at a 3 mm depth. Reduction in microleakage was observed when an IOB was placed, regardless of the material employed ( p ≤ 0.01 ). Among the materials, GIC and RBC performed similarly ( p > 0.05 ), with the bioceramic subgroup being statistically superior to the GIC subgroup ( p ≤ 0.05 ). Conclusions. Although well-designed randomized clinical trials are required, the placement of an intraorifice barrier can significantly reduce microleakage in endodontically treated teeth, and the use of bioceramics as IOB seems to be the best available material for this purpose.