Assessment of the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence: GRADE checklist. A descriptive study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is a tool for assessing evidence produced in synthesis reports. OBJECTIVES: To present the translation into Portuguese of the GRADE checklist, whose original version is in English, and to describe and explain each topic, in order to provide examples to researchers and professionals who will use the tool. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study developed at Centro Universitário Tiradentes, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil. METHODS: This was a translation of the GRADE checklist, with the addition of the Risk Of Bias In Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool in the checklist, with examples of its use. RESULTS: Situations of practical use of the tool were presented in order to facilitate and expand the use of assessment of the quality and strength of evidence among Portuguese speakers. CONCLUSIONS: The GRADE checklist is valuable in helping to assess the strength and quality of evidence for synthesis reports for healthcare decision-making.

Bond strength of selfadhesive flowable resin composites to tooth structure: a systematic review

Aim: To review the current literature regarding the bond strength of self-adhesive flowable resin composites (SAFRCs) to tooth structure, comparing the outcomes with conventional flowable resin composites (CFRCs). Methods: PubMed/Medline, EbscoHost and Scopus databases were screened (last update on November 2020) using related Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free terms. We included in vitro studies published in English language comparing the bond strength of SAFRCs and CFRCs to enamel and/or dentin from primary and/or permanent teeth. Results: In total, 23 articles were included. Unlike CFRCs, SAFRCs such as Vertise® Flow and Fusio™ Liquid Dentin exhibited statistically lower bond strength to enamel and dentin from permanent teeth. There were limited studies comparing the enamel bond strength of CFRCs and SAFRCs (prior phosphoric acid etching and/or adhesive system use). Also, we found few studies that evaluated the bonding effectiveness of Constic® and other SAFRCs to primary teeth. Conclusions: Current SAFRCs showed low bond strength to permanent teeth, which impedes to recommend them as a reliable alternative to CFRCs. The bonding performance of Constic® on both hard dental tissues should be evaluated on future studies. Also, more evidence assessing the bond strength of SAFRCs to primary teeth and etched enamel is needed