Bonding of Composite Cements Containing 10-MDP to Zirconia Ceramics Without Dedicated Ceramic Primer.

PURPOSE: To measure zirconia-to-zirconia microtensile bond strength (µTBS) using composite cements with and without primer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two Initial Zirconia UHT (GC) sticks (1.8x1.8x5.0 mm) were bonded using four cements with and without their respective manufacturer's primer/adhesive (G-CEM ONE [GOne] and G-Multi Primer, GC; Panavia V5 [Pv5]), and Panavia SA Cement Universal [PSAu], and Clearfil Ceramic Plus, Kuraray Noritake; RelyX Universal (RXu) and Scotchbond Universal Plus [SBUp], 3M Oral Care). Specimens were trimmed to an hour-glass shaped specimen whose isthmus is circular in cross-section. After 1-week water storage, the specimens were either tested immediately (1-week µTBS) or first subjected to 50,000 thermocycles (50kTC-aged µTBS). The fracture mode was categorized as either adhesive interfacial failure, cohesive failure in composite cement, or mixed failure, followed by SEM fracture analysis of selected specimens. Data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects statistics (α = 0.05; variables: composite cement, primer/adhesive application, aging). RESULTS: The statistical analysis revealed no significant differences with aging (p = 0.3662). No significant difference in µTBS with/without primer and aging was recorded for GOne and PSAu. A significantly higher µTBS was recorded for Pv5 and RXu when applied with their respective primer/adhesive. Comparing the four composite cements when they were applied in the manner that resulted in their best performance, a significant difference in 50kTC-aged µTBS was found for PSAu compared to Pv5 and RXu. A significant decrease in µTBS upon 50kTC aging was only recorded for RXu in combination with SBUp. CONCLUSION: Adequate bonding to zirconia requires the functional monomer 10-MDP either contained in the composite cement, in which case a separate 10-MDP primer is no longer needed, or in the separately applied primer/adhesive.

Validity of periodontitis screening questions in a Brazilian adult population-based study.

Population-based studies assessing self-reported periodontal questions in low-income countries are lacking, and therefore we aimed to assess the accuracy of self-reported periodontal items in Brazil. One thousand one hundred and forty adults from Florianópolis, Brazil, had their periodontium clinically examined, and responded to the following self-reported items on periodontal conditions: Question (Q)1, Do you have any wobbly teeth?; Q2, Do your gums usually bleed?; and Q3, Has your dentist ever told you that you have gum disease? Periodontitis was defined as: a. ≥ 6.0 mm periodontal pocket and ≥ 4.0 mm clinical attachment loss in the same tooth, in at least one tooth (PD1); or b. ≥ 6.0 mm periodontal pocket and ≥ 4.0 mm clinical attachment loss, not necessarily in the same tooth (PD2). Sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) were calculated, and analyses were stratified by socioeconomic status and time since last dental visit. Scores were generated in order to determine the accuracy of the whole set of items. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted. Prevalence of clinically diagnosed periodontitis was 2.6% (95%CI = 1.7-4.0%) for PD1 and 3.8% (95%CI = 2.7-5.3%) for PD2. Prevalence of self-reported periodontitis varied between 2.7 (Q2) and 22.0% (Q3). SN and SP ranged between 0.0-60.0% and 73.3-98.6%, respectively; Q1 showed the highest accuracy (140.8%) followed by Q3 (140.0%). The combined score of the three self-reported items did not improve accuracy estimates; the areas under the ROC curves were 0.70 and 0.68 for PD1 and PD2, respectively. The accuracy of self-reported items was low, and further studies are needed in order to develop valid and reliable periodontitis screening questions for population-based studies.

Validity of periodontitis screening questions in a Brazilian adult population-based study

Abstract Population-based studies assessing self-reported periodontal questions in low-income countries are lacking, and therefore we aimed to assess the accuracy of self-reported periodontal items in Brazil. One thousand one hundred and forty adults from Florianópolis, Brazil, had their periodontium clinically examined, and responded to the following self-reported items on periodontal conditions: Question (Q)1, Do you have any wobbly teeth?; Q2, Do your gums usually bleed?; and Q3, Has your dentist ever told you that you have gum disease? Periodontitis was defined as: a. ≥ 6.0 mm periodontal pocket and ≥ 4.0 mm clinical attachment loss in the same tooth, in at least one tooth (PD1); or b. ≥ 6.0 mm periodontal pocket and ≥ 4.0 mm clinical attachment loss, not necessarily in the same tooth (PD2). Sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) were calculated, and analyses were stratified by socioeconomic status and time since last dental visit. Scores were generated in order to determine the accuracy of the whole set of items. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted. Prevalence of clinically diagnosed periodontitis was 2.6% (95%CI = 1.7-4.0%) for PD1 and 3.8% (95%CI = 2.7-5.3%) for PD2. Prevalence of self-reported periodontitis varied between 2.7 (Q2) and 22.0% (Q3). SN and SP ranged between 0.0-60.0% and 73.3-98.6%, respectively; Q1 showed the highest accuracy (140.8%) followed by Q3 (140.0%). The combined score of the three self-reported items did not improve accuracy estimates; the areas under the ROC curves were 0.70 and 0.68 for PD1 and PD2, respectively. The accuracy of self-reported items was low, and further studies are needed in order to develop valid and reliable periodontitis screening questions for population-based studies.

Diagnostic validity of self-reported oral health outcomes in population surveys: literature review / Validade diagnostica de agravos bucais autorreferidos em inqueritos populacionais: revisao da literatura

Population-based health surveys are increasingly including self-reported oral health measures. However, their validity is frequently questioned. This study aimed to review the diagnostic validity of self-reported oral health measures - regarding periodontal conditions, number of remaining teeth and use and need of prostheses - and to present prototypes of oral health items to assess periodontal conditions. Papers published between 1991 and 2011 were identified through PubMed database. The sample profile, the sample size and the methods used in each study were analyzed, as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the oral health items. Periodontists were contacted, using a standardized text, sent by e-mail, which asked them to provide self-reported items regarding periodontal conditions. We reviewed 19 studies; 13 assessed periodontal conditions; five, the number of remaining teeth and four, the use and need of prosthesis - some studies evaluated two or more conditions simultaneously. Five of the eight periodontists suggested questions to assess periodontal conditions. The maximum and the minimum sensitivity values to assess periodontal conditions, number of remaining teeth and use and need of prosthesis were 100 and 2%; 91 and 21%; 100 and 100%; respectively; the maximum and the minimum specificity values were 100 and 18%; 97 and 96%; 93 and 93%; respectively. In conclusion, there are acceptable sensitivity and specificity values for number of remaining teeth and use and need of prosthesis only. Finally, we consider there is the need for further studies in the national context, in order to assess the impact of the questions about self-reported oral health conditions in epidemiological analyses. Therefore, it will be possible to empirically verify if self-reported questions can be used in such studies.

Inquéritos epidemiológicos têm incluído, cada vez mais, questões de saúde bucal autorreferidas. Entretanto, a validade de tais questões é frequentemente questionada. O objetivo deste estudo foi revisar a validade diagnóstica de questões sobre condições bucais autorreferidas - condições periodontais, número de dentes presentes e uso e necessidade de prótese dentária - e apresentar protótipos de questões autorreferidas para condições periodontais. Os artigos foram identificados na base PubMed, publicados no período entre 1991 e 2011. Foram descritos a composição, o tamanho da amostra e os métodos empregados em cada estudo, além da sensibilidade, especificidade, valor preditivo positivo e valor preditivo negativo das questões utilizadas. Foram contatados periodontistas, através de texto padronizado e enviado por correio eletrônico, solicitando propostas de itens sobre condições periodontais autorreferidas. O presente estudo revisou 19 trabalhos. Desses, 13 avaliaram condições periodontais; cinco avaliaram o número de dentes presentes; e quatro avaliaram o uso e a necessidade de prótese dentária - alguns estudos avaliaram duas ou mais condições simultaneamente. Cinco dos oito periodontistas contatados sugeriram perguntas para avaliar condições periodontais. A sensibilidade máxima e mínima encontrada para condições periodontais, número de dentes presentes e uso e necessidade de prótese dentária foi de 100 e 2%; 91 e 21%; 100 e 100%, respectivamente; a especificidade máxima e mínima foi de 100 e 18%; 97 e 96%; 93 e 93%, respectivamente. Concluímos que existem valores de sensibilidade e especificidade aceitáveis somente para a aferição do número de dentes presentes e da necessidade de prótese. Entretanto, são necessários estudos, no contexto nacional, que avaliem o impacto de perguntas sobre as condições de saúde bucal autorreferidas, verificando se, empiricamente, questões autorreferidas podem ser utilizadas em tais estudos.

Diagnostic validity of self-reported oral health outcomes in population surveys: literature review.

Population-based health surveys are increasingly including self-reported oral health measures. However, their validity is frequently questioned. This study aimed to review the diagnostic validity of self-reported oral health measures - regarding periodontal conditions, number of remaining teeth and use and need of prostheses - and to present prototypes of oral health items to assess periodontal conditions. Papers published between 1991 and 2011 were identified through PubMed database. The sample profile, the sample size and the methods used in each study were analyzed, as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the oral health items. Periodontists were contacted, using a standardized text, sent by e-mail, which asked them to provide self-reported items regarding periodontal conditions. We reviewed 19 studies; 13 assessed periodontal conditions; five, the number of remaining teeth and four, the use and need of prosthesis - some studies evaluated two or more conditions simultaneously. Five of the eight periodontists suggested questions to assess periodontal conditions. The maximum and the minimum sensitivity values to assess periodontal conditions, number of remaining teeth and use and need of prosthesis were 100 and 2%; 91 and 21%; 100 and 100%; respectively; the maximum and the minimum specificity values were 100 and 18%; 97 and 96%; 93 and 93%; respectively. In conclusion, there are acceptable sensitivity and specificity values for number of remaining teeth and use and need of prosthesis only. Finally, we consider there is the need for further studies in the national context, in order to assess the impact of the questions about self-reported oral health conditions in epidemiological analyses. Therefore, it will be possible to empirically verify if self-reported questions can be used in such studies.