Short-term effect of adhesive system on clinical performance of bulk fill composite: randomized clinical trial

Aim: Although bulk fill composites have been widely used as restorative material, there is no consensus regarding the best clinical protocol in terms of composite technique and adhesive system. Therefore, this clinical trial evaluated the clinical performance of bulk fill composites for class I restorations under different protocols. Methods: A randomized clinical trial including 155 class I restorations was conducted using different adhesive systems: conventional technique (phosphoric acid + conventional three-step adhesive system) (Group 1, 2 and 3); or self-etching adhesive system (Groups 4, 5 and 6). Control groups 1 and 4 were restored with conventional composite; groups 2 and 5 with low viscosity bulk fill and conventional composite as occlusal coverage; groups 3 and 6 with high viscosity bulk fill. The FDI criteria was used for clinical evaluation at baseline and after 6 months. Results: All groups showed good clinical performance. At baseline, the adhesive system did not affect postoperative hypersensitivity. After 6 months, group 5 showed a significant reduction in color and translucency; group 6 a reduction in terms of anatomical form and for postoperative sensitivity and an improvement in patient satisfaction (p<0.05). Considering the same restorative technique, the use of the self-etching adhesive system showed a significant decrease in color and translucency (p<0.05). Conclusion: All groups showed favorable clinical performance, and promising results were found for the conventional adhesive system and high viscosity bulk fill protocol

Barreras y facilitadores para la investigación en ciencias de la salud durante la crisis del COVID-19: una revisión de alcance / Health science research barriers and facilitators in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis: scoping review

RESUMEN Objetivo: La pandemia ocasionada por el Covid-19 ha significado un gran desafío para la investigación en salud por la necesidad de dar una respuesta oportuna y efectiva a esta situación de crisis. Es importante proveer una visión panorámica sobre las principales barreras y facilitadores encontrados en la conducción de estudios en ciencias de la salud durante la crisis del Covid-19, así como también de las iniciativas en investigación sugeridas por autoridades en salud de investigación a nivel global, regional o local. Materiales y métodos: Se desarrolló una revisión sistemática de alcance. Se hizo una búsqueda de la literatura en Medline, Cochrane library, Lilacs y Google Scholar. Se incluyeron estudios de investigación originales, artículos de revisión, de opinión y editoriales disponibles en texto completo, publicados entre enero de 2020 y mayo de 2021 en español, inglés o portugués. Se hizo selección de los documentos y extracción de los datos por dos autores de manera independiente. Las barreras y facilitadores identificados fueron descritos y organizados en cuatro categorías a partir de la literatura: socioculturales, administrativos, organizacionales y metodológicos. Asimismo, se incluyeron documentos y comunicados oficiales de autoridades en salud e investigación a nivel global, regional y local. Los resultados se presentan de manera narrativa y en tablas. Resultados: Se seleccionaron 26 documentos para el análisis y síntesis de la información. Las barreras mencionadas más frecuentemente en la literatura incluyen las dificultades en cuanto al acceso a los participantes, a los trámites asociados a los comités de ética; así como el riesgo biológico para los investigadores y la falta de coordinación inter e intrainstitucional. Por su parte, los facilitadores identificados incluyen la adopción de soluciones virtuales, el trabajo cooperativo entre los actores de la investigación y la flexibilidad en el proceso de obtención del consentimiento informado. Frente a las iniciativas difundidas por las autoridades en salud e investigación, se identificaron cuatro estrategias relacionadas con la priorización de preguntas de investigación, el fomento de la cooperación y la inclusión en la investigación, la lucha contra la infodemia y el fortalecimiento de la calidad metodológica de los estudios. Conclusiones: Para la investigación en el contexto de la pandemia representa un desafío continuar con la cooperación e interoperabilidad entre las instituciones, los países y las disciplinas, con el fin de facilitar los procesos investigativos en el futuro; del mismo modo, cobra importancia mantener la ciencia abierta y la financiación de estudios cooperativos cuando surjan otras prioridades. Asimismo, es evidente la necesidad de desarrollar y sostener mecanismos que gestionen la información de manera eficiente para la toma de decisiones. Se requiere evaluar de manera continua los efectos que ha dejado esta pandemia en la práctica de la investigación en ciencias de la salud para comprender de manera integral lo que debemos aprender como sociedad a partir de las crisis.

ABSTRACT Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed a great challenge on health research because of the pressing need to respond promptly and effectively to this crisis situation. It is important to offer a high level perspective of the main barriers and facilitators found when conducting health science studies during the COVID-19 crisis and to discuss the research initiatives suggested by global, regional or local health research authorities. Materials and methods: A systematic scoping review was carried out. A literature search was conducted in the Medline, Cochrane Library, Lilacs and Google Scholar databases. Original research studies, review and opinion articles and editorials available in full text published in Spanish, English or Portuguese between January 2020 and May 2021 were included. Two authors working independently selected the papers and collected the data. The barriers and facilitators identified were described and organized in four categories according to the literature: sociocultural, administrative, organizational and methodological. Official documents and communications from global, regional and local health and research authorities were also included. Results are presented in narrative and table form. Results: Overall, 26 documents were selected for data analysis and synthesis. The barriers most frequently mentioned in the literature include issues with access to participants, ethics committees paperwork, biological risk for the researchers, and lack of inter and intra-institutional coordination. On the other hand, the facilitators identified include the adoption of on-line solutions, cooperative work among research actors, and a more flexible informed consent process. Regarding the initiatives disseminated by health and research authorities, four strategies were identified: prioritization of research questions, cooperation and inclusion promotion, fight against infodemia, and strengthening of the methodological quality of the studies. Conclusions: Continued cooperation and interoperability among institutions, countries and disciplines to facilitate future research processes is a challenge in the context of the pandemic; similarly, it is now important to maintain open science and funding of cooperative studies when other priorities emerge. Likewise, there is an evident need to develop and sustain efficient information management systems to help with decision-making. Ongoing review of the effects of the pandemic on health research practice is needed in order to gain comprehensive insights of what we need to learn as a society from this crisis.

Análise crítica dos Estudos ACCORD versus SPRINT ­ Resultados e metas pressóricas / Critical analysis of ACCORD versus SPRINT trials ­ Results and blood pressure targets

A meta ideal para controle da pressão arterial tem sido amplamente discutida ao longo de décadas, sendo objetivo principal de diversos estudos. Se por um lado há os trabalhos que reforçam a importância de um controle mais rigoroso da pressão arterial para diminuir desfechos cerebrais ou cardiovasculares, de outro, aqueles que não demonstraram isso advogam a já tradicional meta da pressão arterial sistólica (PAS), inferior a 140mmHg. Tal controvérsia pode ser explicada pelo grupo de pacientes estudados, pelo maior ou menor poder estatístico do estudo, e pelos desfechos definidos como primários. Dentre esses estudos, especificamente nos pacientes com alto risco cardiovascular, destacam-se o ACCORD BP realizado somente com diabéticos e o SPRINT, realizado com pacientes de alto risco, porém sem diabetes e acidente vascular cerebral (AVC) prévio. Ambos foram ensaios clínicos randomizados e controlados, que compararam desfechos cardiovasculares ocorridos em grupos com controle intensivo da pressão arterial (PAS<120 mmHg) versus controle padrão (PAS<140 mmHg). Enquanto o estudo ACCORD BP não mostrou benefício frente ao controle intensivo, exceto pelo desfecho cerebral (um desfecho secundário), o SPRINT mostrou eventos significativamente menores nesse grupo, sendo inclusive interrompido precocemente. Além do delineamento, ambos os estudos são similares por se tratarem de pacientes de alto risco. Ao mesmo tempo, são diferentes pela exclusão de pacientes com AVC prévio e diabetes no SPRINT, enquanto pela não inclusão da insuficiência cardíaca nos desfechos primários do ACCORD BP. O objetivo desta presente revisão é justamente destacarmos esses pontos que, embora inicialmente controversos, nos permitirá concluir que metas distintas são necessárias para grupos populacionais distintos

The ideal target for blood pressure has been widely discussed for decades in several studies. If on one hand there are observational studies that reinforce the importance of a more rigorous blood pressure control to decrease cerebrovascular and cardiovascular outcomes, on the other hand, those investigations which have not shown these findings reinforce the already traditional systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of less than 140mmHg. This controversy can be explained by differences in the characteristics of patients included in the studies, the statistical power of the studies and differences in primary outcomes. Among these studies, particularly in patients with high cardiovascular risk, we highlight ACCORD BP, performed only in diabetic patients, and the SPRINT trial, carried out in high-risk patients without diabetes and no previous stroke. Both were randomized controlled trials that compared cardiovascular outcomes in patients with intensive blood pressure control (SBP<120 mmHg) versusstandard blood pressure control (SBP<140 mmHg). While the ACCORD BP study showed no benefit in intensive blood pressure control, except by stroke outcome (a secondary outcome), the SPRINT showed significantly lower events in patients randomized to intensive blood pressure control. In relation to the design, both studies are similar because they included high-risk patients. At the same time, they are different by excluding patients with previous stroke and diabetes in the SPRINT Trial, while the ACCORD BP did not include heart failure in the primary outcomes. The aim of this review is to discuss these important issues. Although controversial, both studies allow us to conclude that different goals are needed for different population subgroups.