Search

Despite its widespread acceptance in the scientific world, impact factor (IF) has been criticized recently on many accounts: including lack of quality assessment of the citations, influence of self citation, English language bias, etc. In the current study, we evaluated three indices of journal scientific impact: (IF), Eigenfactor Score (ES), and SCImago Journal rank indicator (SJR) of nuclear medicine journals. Overall 13 nuclear medicine journals are indexed in ISI and SCOPUS and 7 in SCOPUS only. Self citations, Citations to non-English articles, citations to non-citable items and citations to review articles contribute to IFs of some journals very prominently, which can be better detected by ES and SJR to some extent. Considering all three indices while judging quality of the nuclear medicine journals would be a better strategy due to several shortcomings of IF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Restorative dentistry faces complex challenges with deep proximal surface destruction, requiring novel approaches like DME (Deep Margin Elevation). In order to achieve the best results while treating severe tooth damage, this study examines the advantages, disadvantages, and possible collaborations of different treatments., Aims: This systematic review investigates the efficacy of DME as an adjunctive procedure in restorative dentistry, specifically focusing on its impact on microleakage., Methods: The study adheres to PRISMA guidelines and employs the PICOS framework for eligibility criteria. 394 potentially qualifying studies were discovered and thorough literature search was carried out via databases. After applying inclusion criteria, 7 studies were included in the analysis. Articles were selected based on criteria that included indirect restoration and performing DME and were compared with indirect restorations without DME. Composite resin was used for DME. Other materials for DME performing, including GI and composite flow, were systematically reviewed. Data analysis was done by biostat software (α = 0.05)., Results: The meta-analysis of selected studies reveals a statistically significant positive effect of DME on reduction of microleakage (p = 0.001)., Conclusion: The results of this study underscore the potential of DME in addressing subgingival margin challenges and provide valuable insights for restorative dentistry practices., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to British Dental Association.)

Introduction: One of the possible mechanisms for the gradual destruction of bond strength in dentin-resin interface, could be due to the demineralized unstable collagen matrix. Use of protease inhibitors, such as tannic acid (TA) could prevent destruction of collagen fibers. The aim of this study was to compare the TA effect on bond strength of etch and rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in the dentin of primary teeth., Materials and Methods: This in vitro study was done on 40 extracted primary molar teeth. The teeth were sectioned in the mesiodistal direction, and enamel of buccal and lingual surfaces was removed. Samples were randomly divided into four groups: Single bond (SB) + TA, SB, Clearfil SE Bond (CSB) + TA, and CSB. Then, Z250 and Clearfil AP-X composites were cured on the surfaces of SB and CSB groups respectively. After that, all samples were divided into aging and non-aging groups. For 3 months, samples were placed under 1,000 thermal cycles in aging group. Subsequently, the shear bond strengths of all groups were measured by the International testing machine, and failure mode was evaluated by an optical stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed with paired t-test and independent t-test., Results: Tannic acid induced a significant reduction in the immediate bond strength of adhesive SB. Meanwhile, TA had no significant effect on shear bond strength of the CSB system., Conclusion: Based on our findings, use of TA is not recommended with SB and CSB adhesives on primary teeth., Clinical Significance: Tannic acid may not be considered in resin restorations of primary teeth.

Objective: The efficacy of flowable composite in improving marginal adaptation or reducing microleakage is not fully understood. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate existing evidence to verify whether an application of flowable composite as a liner provided less microleakage in Class 2 composite restorations., Method and Materials: PubMed, ISI (Web of Science), and Scopus databases were searched according to the selected keywords, up to 15 Feb 2015, without any restriction on date or language. Full texts of published articles that seemed to meet primary criteria for inclusion in this research were obtained. Data of studies were extracted if they were assessed as high or moderate level of evidence. Due to the variation of methods used in different studies, they were divided into five groups: groups 1 and 2, studies that evaluated the effect of flowable composite as a liner on dentinal or enamel margins and applied flowable composite on all of the cavity wall margins; groups 3 and 4, studies that evaluated the effect of flowable composite as a liner on dentinal and enamel margins and applied flowable composite only on gingival margin; and group 5, clinical studies., Results: The initial search yielded 1,370 publications. After hand searching, six extra studies were included in the review. The abstracts of all were read independently by AB and SG. After methodologic assessment and evaluation of the level of evidence, 18 studies were selected for this study. The results of this study indicate that flowable composite liners have no significant effect on microleakage of composite restorations in all of five groups., Conclusion: Application of flowable composite as a liner in composite restorations cannot reduce microleakage or improve clinical performance.