The effect of bonding and surface sealant application on postoperative sensitivity from posterior composites

Comparison of postoperative hypersensitivity between Total-etch and Universal adhesive system: a randomized clinical trial

The objective was to determine the postoperative hypersensitivity of two-step Total-etch as compared to one-step Universal adhesives followed by composite restorations on 100 patients by applying Total-etch on one tooth and Universal adhesive on another tooth. The bonds and teeth were randomly selected. Postoperative hypersensitivity was recorded by visual analog scale before, immediately after, and 24 h after the restoration using cold stimulus. The Mann-Whitney test was applied for statistical comparison of postoperative hypersensitivity between the two bonds as well as for any significant difference in genders with each bond. No significant difference was found between postoperative hypersensitivity of the two adhesives before (p-value = 0.57), immediately after (p-value = 0.604), and 24 h after (p-value = 0.728) the restoration. Males showed more hypersensitivity with Total-etch as compared to females before (p-value = 0.037), immediately after (p-value = 0.047), and 24 h after the restoration (p-value = 0.022). No significant difference was found between gender and Universal adhesive at all three stages (p-value > 0.05). The results suggest no significant difference in postoperative hypersensitivity between the two materials when good sample size and proper technique were observed along with the removal of bias like different patients having different pain perceptions and multiple operators having different operating skills. Males showed more hypersensitivity to Total-etch.Trial registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials. Registry number: ACTRN12622001213730. (Retrospectively registered: 09/09/2022).

Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the compliance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in posterior restorations with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement (CONSORT) statement and to analyze the risk of bias (RoB) of these studies.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS/BBO, and Cochrane Library. Only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals were included. The compliance with the CONSORT was evaluated in a 0-2 scale where 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the CONSORT mean score by journal, country, and RoB were performed. The RoB in RCTs was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool version 1.0.

RESULTS

A total of 15,476 studies were identified after duplicates removal. O only 202 meet the eligibility criteria, among which 31 were follow-up studies. Concerning the overall RoB, only 29 out of 171 were classified as low risk of bias. The overall mean CONSORT score was 19 ± 5.4 points, which means compliance of approximately 59%. Significant differences among countries, publication period, and RoB were observed (p < 0.001). The journal's impact factor was not correlated with the overall CONSORT score (p = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The adherence of RCTs conducted in posterior restorations to the CONSORT Statement is still low. In addition, most studies were classified as at unclear risk of bias. These results call up an urgent need for improvement.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Most RCTs conducted in posterior teeth have poor reporting and are mainly classified as having an unclear risk of bias.