Impact of different silkworm dietary supplements on its silk performance

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Interrelationships Between Bones, Muscles, and Performance: Biting in the Lizard Tupinambis merianae

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Seven-Year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite Versus Resin-Modified Glass lonomer Restorations in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to comparatively assess the seven-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive with resin composite (RC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorations in noncarious cervical lesions.Methods and Materials: One operator placed 70 restorations (35 restorations in each group) in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. The restorations were directly assessed by two independent examiners, using modified US Public Health Service criteria at baseline and 6, 12, 24, 60, and 84 months. The obtained data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using the Fisher and McNemar tests. A difference was significant if p<0.05.Results: Twenty patients were available for recall after seven years (66.6%), and 25 RC and 26 RMGI restorations out of 70 restorations were evaluated. Excellent agreement was registered for all criteria between examiners (kappa >= 0.85). Alfa and bravo scores were classified as clinically acceptable. The McNemar test detected significant differences within RC restorations between baseline and seven-year evaluations for anatomic form, marginal integrity, and retention (p<0.05). For RMGI restorations, a significant difference was identified for marginal integrity (p<0.05). As to material comparison, the Fisher exact showed a better retention performance for RMGI restorations than for RC restorations (p<0.05). Twelve composite restorations were dislodged (52.0% retention) and three ionomer restorations were lost (88.5% retention). The cumulative success rate for RC and RMGI was 30% and 58.1%, respectively.Conclusions: After seven years of service, the clinical performance of RMGI restorations was superior to that of the adhesive system/resin composite restorations in this study.

Multi-step adhesive cementation versus one-step adhesive cementation: push-out bond strength between fiber post and root dentin before and after mechanical cycling

This study evaluated the effects of mechanical cycling on resin push-out bond strength to root dentin, using two strategies for fiber post cementation. Forty bovine roots were embedded in acrylic resin after root canal preparation using a custom drill of the fiber post system. The fiber posts were cemented into root canals using two different strategies (N = 20): a conventional adhesive approach using a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system combined with a conventional resin cement (ScotchBond Multi Purpose Plus + RelyX ARC ), or a simplified adhesive approach using a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U100). The core was built up with composite resin and half of the specimens from each cementation strategy were submitted to mechanical cycling (45 degree angle; 37 degrees C; 88 N; 4 Hz; 700,000 cycles). Each specimen was cross-sectioned and the disk specimens were pushed-out. The means from every group (n = 10) were statistically analyzed using a two-way ANOVA and a Tukey test (P = 0.05). The cementation strategy affected the push-out results (P < 0.001), while mechanical cycling did not (P = 0.3716). The simplified approach (a self-adhesive resin cement) had better bond performance despite the conditioning. The self-adhesive resin cement appears to be a good option for post cementation. Further trials are needed to confirm these results.