Academic literature on the topic 'Philadelphia (Pa.) Dept'

Pages 1678-1694: T. C. Cope, K. R. Hickman, and B. R. Botterman, “Acute effects of spinal transection on EPSPs produced by single homonymous Ia-fibers in soleus agr-motoneurons in the cat.” Page 1692, right column, acknowledgments, the following paragraph should be inserted: Present address of T. C. Cope: Dept. of Physiology and Biophysics, Mail Stop 409, Hahnemann University, Broad and Vine Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19102. Page 1684, Fig. 3, should appear as follows: See PDF for Figure

There are different apprehensions regarding the contemporary assessment system. Often, I listen to my colleagues saying that multiple-choice questions are seen as easier to score. Why can’t all assessments be multiple-choice tests? Some others would say, whether the tests given reflect what students will need to know as competent professionals? What evidence can be collected to make sure that test content is relevant? Others come up with concerns that there is a perception amongst students that some examiners are harsher than others and some tasks are easier than others. What can be done to evaluate whether this is the case? Sometimes, the students come up with queries that they are concerned about being observed when interacting with patients. They are not sure why this is needed. What rationale is there for using workplace-based assessment? Some of the students worry if the pass marks for the assessments are ‘correct’, and what is the evidence for the cut-off scores? All these questions are important, and I would deliberate upon them with evidence from the literature. Deliberating on the first query of using multiple-choice questions for everything, we know that assessment of a medical student is a complex process as there are multiple domains of learning such as cognition, skills, and behaviors (Norcini and McKinley, 2007)(Boulet and Raymond, 2018). Each of the domains further has multiple levels from simple to complex tasks (Norcini and McKinley, 2007). For example, the cognition is further divided into six levels, starting from recall (Cognition level 1 or C1) up to creativity (Cognition level 6 or C6) (Norcini and McKinley, 2007). Similarly, the skills and behaviors also have levels starting from observation up to performance and practice (Norcini and McKinley, 2007). Moreover, there are different competencies within each domain that further complicates our task as an assessor to appropriately assess a student (Boulet and Raymond, 2018). For instance, within the cognitive domain, it is not just making the learning objectives based on Bloom’s Taxonomy that would simplify our task because the literature suggests that individuals have different thinking mechanisms, such as fast and slow thinking to perform a task (Kahneman, 2011). We as educationalists do not know what sort of cognitive mechanism have we triggered through our exam items (Swanson and Case, 1998). Multiple Choice Questions is one of the assessment instruments to measure competencies related to the cognitive domain. This means that we cannot use multiple-choice questions to measure the skills and behaviors domains, so clearly multiple-choice questions cannot assess all domains of learning (Vleuten et al, 2010). Within the cognitive domain, there are multiple levels and different ways of thinking mechanisms (Kahneman, 2011). Each assessment instrument has its strength and limitations. Multiple-choice questions may be able to assess a few of the competencies, also with some added benefits in terms of marking but there always are limitations. The multiple-choice question is no different when it comes to the strengths and limitations profile of an assessment instrument (Swanson and Case, 1998). There are certain competencies that can be easily assessed using multiple-choice questions (Swanson and Case, 1998). For example, content that requires recall, application, and analysis can be assessed with the help of multiple-choice questions. However, creativity or synthesis which is cognition level six (C6) as per Blooms’ Taxonomy, cannot be assessed with closed-ended questions such as a multiple-choice question. This means that we need some additional assessment instruments to measure the higher levels of cognition within the cognitive domain. For example, asking students to explore an open-ended question as a research project can assess the higher levels of cognition because the students would be gathering information from different sources of literature, and then synthesizing it to answer the question. It is reported that marking and reading the essay questions would be time-consuming for the teachers (McLean and Gale, 2018). Hence, the teacher to student’s ratio in assessing the higher levels of cognition needs to be monitored so that teachers or assessors can give appropriate time to assess the higher levels of cognition of their students. Hence, we have to use other forms of assessment instruments along with multiple-choice questions to assess the cognitive domain. This will help to assess the different levels of cognition and will also incite the different thinking mechanisms. Regarding the concerns, whether the tests given reflect what students will need to know as competent professionals? What evidence can be collected to make sure that test content is relevant? It is one of an important issue for medical education and assessment directors whether the tests that they are taking are reflective of the students being competent practitioners? It is also quite challenging as some of the competencies such as professionalism or professional identity formation are difficult to be measured quantitatively with the traditional assessment instruments (Cruess, Cruess, & Steinert, 2016). Moreover, there is also a question if all the competencies that are required for a medical graduate can be assessed with the assessment instruments presently available? Hence, we as educationalists have to provide evidence for the assessment of required competencies and relevant content. One of the ways that we can opt is to carefully align the required content with their relevant assessment instruments. This can be done with the help of assessment blueprints, or also known as the table of specifications in some of the literature (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). An assessment blueprint enables us to demonstrate our planned curriculum, that is, what are our planned objectives, and how are we going to teach and assess them (Boulet and Raymond, 2018). We can also use the validity construct in addition to the assessment blueprints to provide evidence for testing the relevant content. Validity means that the test is able to measure what it is supposed to measure (Boulet and Raymond, 2018). There are different types of validity but one of the validity that is required in this situation to establish the appropriateness of the content is the Content Validity. Content validity is established by a number of subject experts who comment on the appropriateness and relevance of the content (Lawshe, 1975). The third method by which the relevance of content can be established is through standard-setting. A standard is a single cut-off score to qualitatively declare a student competent or incompetent based on the judgment of subject experts (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). There are different ways of standard-setting for example Angoff, Ebel, Borderline method, etc. (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). Although the main purpose is the establishment and decides the cut-off score during the process, the experts also debate on the appropriateness and relevance of the content. This means that the standard-setting methods also have validity procedures that are in-built in their process of establishing the cut-off score. These are some of the methods by which we can provide evidence of the relevance of the content that is required to produce a competent practitioner. The next issue is the perception amongst students that some examiners are harsher than others and some tasks are easier than others. Both these observations have quite a lot of truth in them and can be evaluated following the contemporary medical education evaluation techniques. The first issue reported is that some examiners are harsher than others. In terms of assessment, it has been reported in the literature as ‘hawk dove effect’ (McManus et al, 2006, Murphy et al, 2009). There are different reasons identified in the literature for some of the examiners to be more stringent than others such as age, ethnic background, behavioral reasons, educational background, and experience in a number of years (McManus et al, 2006). Specifically, those examiners who are from ethnic minorities and have more experience show more stringency (McManus et al, 2006). Interestingly, it has been reported elsewhere how the glucose levels affect the decision making of the pass-fail judgments (Kahneman, 2011). There are psychometric methods reported in the literature, such as Rasch modeling that can help determine the ‘hawk dove effect’ of different examiners, and whether it is too extreme or within a zone of normal deviation (McManus et al, 2006, Murphy, et al, 2009). Moreover, the literature also suggests ways to minimize the hawk-dove effect by identifying and paring such examiners so the strictness of one can be compensated by the leniency of the other examiner (McManus et al, 2006). The other issue in this situation is that the students find some tasks easier than others. This is dependent on the complexity of tasks and also on the competence level of students. For example, a medical student may achieve independent measuring of blood pressure in his/her first year but even a consultant surgeon may not be able to perform complex surgery such as a Whipple procedure. This means that while developing tasks we as educationalists have to consider both the competence level of our students and the complexity of the tasks. One way to theoretically understand it is by taking help from the cognitive load theory (Merrienboer 2013). The cognitive load theory suggests that there are three types of cognitive loads; namely, the Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane loads (Merrienboer 2013). The intrinsic load is associated with the complexity of the task. The extraneous load is added to the working memory of students due to a teacher who does not plan his/her teaching session as per students' needs (Merrienboer 2013). The third load is the germane or the good load that helps the student to understand the task and is added by using teaching methods that helps students understand the task (Merrienboer 2013). The teachers can use different instructional designs such as the 4CID model to plan their teaching session of the complex tasks (Merrienboer 2013). One of the ways to understand the difficulty of the task can be to pilot test the task with few students or junior colleagues. Another way to determine the complexity of the task can be through standard-setting methods where a cut-off score is established after the experts discuss each task and determine its cut-off score based on their judgments (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). However, it is important that the experts who have been called for setting standards have relevant experience so as to make credible judgments (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). A third way to evaluate the complexity of tasks is by applying the post-exam item analysis techniques. The difficulty of the task is evaluated after the performance of students in the exam. Each item’s difficulty in the exam can be measured. The items can be placed from extremely easy (100% students correctly answered the item) to extremely difficult (100% students failed on that specific item). The item analysis enables the teachers to determine which tasks were easier in exams as compared to more difficult tasks. Another concern that comes from students is about their observation when interacting with patients. Health professions training programs require the interaction of students with patients. The student-patient interaction is not very often in initial years of student’s training due to the issues of patient safety, and due to the heavy workload on clinical faculty. However, with the passage of time in the training program, these student patient interactions increase. There is also a strong theoretical basis for better learning when the students are put in a context or a given situation (Wenger, 1998). For example, infection control can be taught through a lecture however the learning can be more effective if the students practically learn it in an operation theatre. Moreover, the undergraduate students or foundation year house job doctors are yet not competent enough to practice independently and require supervision for the obvious reasons of patient safety. Although, some of the students may not like being observed it is one of the requirements for their training. The examiners observing them can give them constructive feedback to further improve their performance (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). Feedback is one of the essential components of workplace-based assessments, and it is suggested in the literature that the time for feedback to the student should be almost equal to one-third of the procedure or task time (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013), that is, for a fifteen minutes tasks, there should be at least five minutes for the feedback hence having a total of twenty minutes time on the whole. Further, it is important for the examiners and senior colleagues to establish trust in the competence of their students or trainees. The ‘trust’ is one of the behavioral constructs that also starts initially with an observation (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). Hence, observation of students or house officers by senior colleagues or teachers during clinical encounters is important to establish trust in student’s competence levels. Additionally, in the workplace, there are different skills that are required by the students to demonstrate, and each skill is quite different to others. There are different workplace-based assessment instruments and each of them assesses only certain aspects of student’s performance during clinical practice. For instance, the Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) can primarily assess the history taking and physical examination skills of students (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). Similarly, the Directly Observed Procedural Skills (DOPS) is required to assess the technical and procedural skills of students (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). More so, the Case-based Discussion (CBD) is required to assess clinical reasoning skills, decision-making skills, ethics, and professionalism (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). Further, multi-source feedback (MSF) or 360-degree assessment collects feedback about a student on their performance from multiple sources such as patients, senior and junior colleagues, nursing staff, and administrative staff (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). All these workplace-based assessments require observation of students so they can be given appropriate feedback on their technical and nontechnical skills (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). Hence, clinical encounters at the workplace are quite complex and require training of students from different aspects to fully train them that cannot be accomplished without observation. Some students also worry whether the pass marks for the assessments are ‘correct’, and what is the evidence for the cut-off score in their exams? A standard is a single cut-off score that determines the competence of a student in a particular exam (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). The cut-off score is decided by experts who make a qualitative judgment (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). The purpose is not to establish an absolute truth but to demonstrate the creditability of pass-fail decisions in an exam (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). There are certain variables related to standard setters that may affect the creditability of the standard-setting process; such as age, gender, ethnicity, their understanding of the learners, their educational qualification, and their place of work. Moreover, the definition of competence varies with time, place and person (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). Hence, it is important that the standard setters must know the learners and the competence level expected from them and the standard setters must be called from different places. This is one of the first requirements to have the profile of the standard setters to establish their credibility. Moreover, the selection of the method of standard setting is important, and how familiar are the standard setters with the method of standard-setting. There are many standard-setting methods for different assessment instruments and types of exams (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). It is essential to use the appropriate standard-setting method, and also to train the standard setters on that method of standard setting so they know the procedure. The training can be done by providing them certain data to solve it following the steps of the standard-setting procedure. The record of these exercises is important and can be required at later stages to show the experience of the standard setters. Further, every standard-setter writes a cut-off score for each item (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). The mean score of all the standard setters is calculated to determine the cut-off score for each item (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). The total cut-off score is calculated by adding the pass marks of each individual item (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). The cut-off scores for items would also help in differentiating the hawks from doves, that is, those examiners who are quite strict from those who are lenient (McManus et al, 2006). Hence, it is important to keep the record of these cut-off scores of each item for future records and to have a balanced standard-setting team for future exams (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). Additionally, the meeting minutes is an important document to keep the record for the decisions made during the meeting. Lastly, the exam results and post-exam item analysis is an important document to see the performance of students on each item and to make comparisons with the standard-setting meeting (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). It would be important to document the items that behaved as predicted by the standard setters and those items that would show unexpected responses; for example, the majority of the borderline students either secured quite high marks than the cut-off score or vice versa (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). All the documents mentioned above would ensure the creditability of the standard-setting process and would also improve the quality of exam items. There are many other aspects that could not be discussed in this debate on the contemporary assessment system in medical education. Another area that needs deliberations is the futuristic assessment system and how it would address the limitations of the current system? Disclaimer: This work is derived from one of the assignments of the author submitted for his certificate from Keele University. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- References Boulet, J. and Raymond, M. (2018) ‘Blueprinting: Planning your tests. FAIMER-Keele Master’s in Health Professions Education: Accreditation and Assessment. Module 1, Unit 2.’, FAIMER Centre for Distance Learning, CenMEDIC. 6th edn. London, pp. 7–90. Cruess, R. L., Cruess, S. R., & Steinert, Y. (2016). ‘Amending Miller’s pyramid to include professional identity formation’. Acad Med, 91(2), pp. 180–185. Etheridge, L. and Boursicot, K. (2013) ‘Performance and workplace assessment’, in Dent, J. A. and Harden, R. M. (eds) A practical guide for medical teachers. 4th edn. London: Elsevier Limited. Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Lawshe, CH. (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol, 28(4), pp. 563–75. McLean, M. and Gale, R. (2018) Essays and short answer questions. FAIMER-Keele Master’s in Health Professions Education: Accreditation and Assessment. Module 1, Unit 5, 5th edition. FAIMER Centre for Distance Learning, CenMEDIC, London. McManus, IC. Thompson, M. and Mollon, J. (2006) ‘ Assessment of examiner leniency and stringency (‘hawk-dove effect’) in the MRCP(UK) clinical examination (PACES) using multi-facet Rasch modelling’ BMC Med Educ. 42(6) doi:10.1186/1472- 6920-6-42 Merrienboer, J.J.G. (2013) ‘Instructional Design’, in Dent, J. A. and Harden, R. M. (eds) A practical guide for medical teachers. 4th edn. London: Elsevier Limited. Murphy, JM. Seneviratne, R. Remers, O and Davis, M. (2009) ‘Hawks’ and ‘doves’: effect of feedback on grades awarded by supervisors of student selected components, Med Teach, 31(10), e484-e488, DOI: 10.3109/01421590903258670 Norcini, J. and McKinley, D. W. (2007) ‘Assessment methods in medical education’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(3), pp. 239–250. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.021. Norcini, J. and Troncon, L. (2018) Foundations of assessment. FAIMER-Keele Master’s in Health Professions Education: Accreditation and Assessment. Module 1, Unit 1. 6th edn. London: FAIMER Centre for Distance Learning CenMEDIC. Norcini, J. and McKinley, D. W. (2013) ‘Standard Setting’, in Dent, J. A. and Harden, R. M. (eds) A practical guide for medical teachers. 4th edn. London: Elsevier Limited. Swanson, D. and Case, S. (1998) Constructing written test questions for the basic and clincial sciences. 3rd Ed. National Board of Medical Examiners. 3750 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104. Van Der Vleuten, C. Schuwirth, L. Scheele, F. Driessen, E. and Hodges, B. (2010) ‘The assessment of professional competence: building blocks for theory development’, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, pp. 1-17. doi:10.1016/j. bpobgyn.2010.04.001 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.

Introdução: O maior foco das pesquisas odontológicas nos últimos 60 anos tem sido a adesão e suas técnicas. Mais de 7000 artigos já foram publicados a este respeito. O desenvolvimento dos materiais odontológicos adesivos e as técnicas a eles relacionadas possuem uma história interessante, onde descobertas do passado ainda são usadas de alguma forma no presente. Objetivo: expor, através de uma revisão de literatura, um breve histórico sobre materiais e técnicas restauradoras, bem como o estágio atual da odontologia adesiva, com ênfase na tradução de evidências baseadas em pesquisas laboratoriais para a prática clínica. Materiais e Métodos: Foram selecionados livros de preferência do autor para a introdução de conceitos clássicos e artigos de revisão publicados nos últimos 10 anos, utilizando as cinco palavras-chave: “Dental Bonding” AND “Dental Cements” AND “Resin Cements” AND “Adhesives” AND “Ceramics”, sorteados pela melhor combinação na plataforma Pub/Med/MEDLINE. Resultados: Duzentos e um artigos, foram encontrados, sendo utilizados para análise qualitativa e quantitativa aqueles pertinentes ao direcionamento do autor, de acordo com o tema. Conclusão: Considerando as limitações do estudo, concluiu-se que a odontologia adesiva é uma área que segue em constante desenvolvimento, fundamental para a realização de restaurações minimamente invasivas e estéticas. Onde para que seja possível consequentemente longevidade clínica, os materiais utilizados e substrato dentário requerem conhecimento do profissional e fidelidade na execução de um correto pré-tratamento das superfícies, respeitando suas naturezas e composições.Descritores: Colagem Dentária; Cimentos Dentários; Cimentos de Resina; Adesivos; Cerâmica.ReferênciasVan Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003;28:215-35.Miyashita E, Fonseca AS. Odontologia Estética: O estado da arte. São Paulo: Artes Médicas; 2004.Hagger O. Swiss Patent 27894 British Patent 687299, 1951.Buonocore MG, Willeman W, Brudevold F. A Report on a resin composition capable of bonding to human dentin surface. J Dent Res. 1956;35:846-51.Bottino MA, Faria R, Valandro LF. Percepção: estética em próteses livres de metal em dentes naturais e implantes. São Paulo: Artes Médicas, 2009.Larson TD. Using multiple bonding strategies. northwest dent. 2015;94:33-9.Helvey GA. Adhesive dentistry: the development of immediate dentin sealing/selective etching bonding technique. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2011;32:22,24-32,34-5.Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res. 2000;79:1385-91.Mante FK, Ozer F, Walter R, Atlas AM, Saleh N, Dietschi D, et al. The current state of adhesive dentistry: a guide for clinical practice. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013;34:2-8.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;3:e123-30.Bento A. Como fazer uma revisão de literatura: Considerações teóricas e práticas. Revista JA (Associação Acadêmica da Universidade da Madeira). 2012;65:42-4.Gwinnett AJ. Structure and composition of enamel. Oper Dent. 1992;5:10-7.Mondelli J, Furuse AY, Francischone AC, Pereira MA. Excelência estética e funcional das resinas compostas em dentes posteriores. São Paulo: Artes Médicas; 2004.Garberoglio R, Bränström M. Scanning electron microscopy investigation of human dentinal tubules. Arch Oral Biol. 1976;21:355-62.Pashley DH. Dentin, a dynamic substrate – A review. Scanning Microscopy. 1989;1:161-74.Mazzoni A, Mannello F, Tay FR, Tonti GA, Mazzotti G, Di Lenarda R et al. Zymographic analysis and characterization of MMP-2 and -9 forms in human sound dentin. J Dent Res. 2007;86:436-40.Mankovskaia A, Lévesque CM, Prakki A. Catechin-incorporated dental copolymers inhibit growth of Streptococcus mutans. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013;21:203-7.Sulkala M, Larmas M, Sorsa T, Salo T, Tjäderhane L. The localization of matrix metalloproteinase-20 (MMP-20, enamelysin) in mature human teeth. J Dent Res. 2002;81:603-7.Tjaderhane L, Palosaari H, Wahlgren J, Larmas M, Sorsa T, Salo T. Human odontoblast culture method: the expression of collagen and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). Adv Dent Res. 2001;15:55-8.Wang DY, Zhang L, Fan J, Li F, Ma KQ, Wang P, et al. Matrix metalloproteinases in human sclerotic dentine of attrited molars. Arch Oral Biol. 2012;57:1307-12.Wang Y, Spencer P, Walker MP. Chemicalprofileof adhesive/caries-affected dentin interfaces using Raman microspectroscopy. J Biomed Mat Res. 2007;81A:279-86.Suppa P, Ruggeri A Jr, Tay FR, Prati C, Biasotto M, Falconi M, et al. Reduced antigenicity of type I collagen and proteoglycans in sclerotic dentin. J Dent Res. 2006;85:133-37.Madfa AA, Yue XG. Dental protheses mimic the natural enamel behavior under functional loading: A review article. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2016;52:2-13.Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Hybridization of Dental Hard Tissues. Tokio: Quintessence Publishing, 1998.Van Meerbeek B, Vargas M, Inoue S, Yoshida Y, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, et al. Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry. Oper Dent. 2001;6:119-44.Pashley DH, Carvalho RM. Dentine permeability and dentine adhesion. J Dent. 1997;25:355-72.Imazato S, Tarumi H, Ebi N, Ebisu S. Citotoxic effects of composite restorations employing self-etching primers or experimental antibacterial primers. J Dent. 2000;28:61-7.Alex G. Universal adhesives: the next evolution in adhesive dentistry? Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015;36:15-26.Muñoz MA, Luque I, Hass V, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Bombarda NH. Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentine. Journal of Dentistry. 2013;41:404–11.Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives Part II: Etching effects on unground enamel. Dental Mater. 2001;17:430-44.Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43:765-76.Szesz A, Parreiras S, Reis A, Loguercio A. Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self-etch adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;53:1-11.Kord FP, Lee BP. Recent approches in designing bioadhesive materials inspired by mussel adhesive protein. J Polym Sci A Polym Chem. 2017;55:9-33.Peters MC, McLean ME. Minimally Invasive Operative Care I. Minimal Intervention and Concepts for Minimally Invasive Cavity Preparations. J Ad Dent. 2011;3:7-16.Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, Mount GJ. Minimal Intervention Dentistry – A review. Int Dent J. 2000;50:1-12.Roulet JF, Wilson NHF, Fuzzi M. Advances in Operative Dentistry – Contemporary clinical Practice. Oxford: Quintessence Books, 2000.Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Khan AS, Zohaib S, Martí JM, et al. Modifications in Glass Ionomer Cements: Nano-Sized Fillers and Bioactive Nanoceramics. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:pii:E1134.Poubel DLN, Almeida JCF, Dias Ribeiro AP, Maia GB, Martinez JMG, Garcia FCP. Effect of dehydration and rehydration intervals on fracture resistance of reattached tooth fragments using multimode adhesive. Dent Traumatol. 2017;33:451-7.Mainjot AK, Dupont NM, Oudkerk JC, Dewael TY, Sadoun MJ. From Artisanal to CAD-CAM Blocks: State of the Art of Indirect Composites. J Dent Res. 2016;95:487-95.Lacy AM. A critical look at posterior composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1987;114:357-62.Anusavice KJ. Phillips’ Science of dental materials: 11th ed. Philadelphia: W.B, 2003.Bella Dona A. Adesão às cerâmicas: evidências científicas para o uso clínico. São Paulo: Artes Médicas, 2009.Fairhurst CW. Dental ceramics: the state of the Science. Adv Dent Res. 1992;6:78-81.Kurdvk B. Giuseppangelo Fonzi: Industrial fabrication promoter of porcelain prosthetics. J History Dent. 1999;47:79-82.Jones DW, Wilson HJ. Some properties of dental ceramics. J Oral Rehabil. 1975;2:379-96.Messer RL, Lockwood PE, Wataha JC, Lewis JB, Norris S, Bouillaguet S. In vitro cytotoxicity of traditional versus contemporary dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90:452-58.Zarone F, Ferrari M, Mangano FG, Leone R, Sorrentino R. Digitally oriented materials: focus on lithium disilicate ceramics. Int J Dent. 2016:9840594.Shen Z, Nygren M. Microstructural prototyping of ceramics by Kinect engineering: applications of spark plasma sintering. Chem Rec. 2005;5:173-84.Denry I, Kelly JR. Emerging ceramic-based materials for dentistry. J Dent Res. 2014;93: 1235-42.Baier RE. Principles of adhesion. Oper Dent. 1992;5:1-9.Erickson RL. Surface interactions of dentin adhesive materials. Oper Dent. 1992;5:81-94.Ruyter, IE. The chemistry of adhesive agents. Oper Dent. 1992;5-11.Jendresen MD, Glantz PO, Baier RE, Eick JD. Microtopography and clinical adhesiveness of an acid etched tooth surface. An vivo study. Acta Odontolol Scand. 1981;39:47-53.Van Meerbeek B, Perdigão J, Lambrechts P, Vanherie G. The Clinical performance adhesives. J Dent Res. 1998;26:1-20.De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005;84:118-32.Matei R, Popescu MR, Suciu M, Rauten AM. Clinical dental adhesive application: the influence on composite-enamel interface morphology. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2014;55:863-68.Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955;34:849-53.Chow LC, Brown, WE. Phosphoric acid conditioning of teeth for pit and fissure sealants. J Dent Res. 1973;1517-25.Bastos PA, Retief DH, Bradley EL, Denys FR. Effect of duration on the shear bond strength of a microfill composite resin to enamel. Am J Dent. 1988;1:151-57.Gwinnett AJ. Acid etching for composite resins. Dent Clin North Amer. 1981;25:271-89.Retief DH. Are adhesives techniques suficiente to prevent microleakage? Symposium of Dental Materials, Pulp Biology Group, IADR, The Netherlands. 1986.Causton BE. Improved bonding of composite restorative to dentin. Br Dent J. 1984;156:93-5.Mitchen JC, Gronas DG. Effects of time after extraction and depth of dentin on resin dentin adhesives. J Am Dent Ass. 1986;113:285-89.Heymann HO, Bayne SC. Current concepts in dentin bonding: focusing in dentin adhesion factors. J Am Dent Ass. 1993;124:27-36.Dbradović-Djuricić K, Medić V, Dodić S, Gavrilov D, Antonijević D, Zrilić M. Dilemmas in zirconia bonding: a review. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2013;141:395-401.Chen C, Chen Y, Lu Z, Qian M, Xie H, Tay FR. The effects of water on degradation of the zirconia-resin bond. J Dent. 2017;pii: S0300-5712, 17, 30088-X.Naumova EA, Ernst S, Schaper K, Arnold WH, Piwowarczyk A. Adhesion of different resin cements to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater J. 2016;35:345-52.Novais VR, Rapouso LH, Miranda RR, Lopes CC, Simamoto PC Júnior, Soares CJ. Degree of conversion and bond strength of resin-cements to feldspathic ceramic using different curing modes. J Appl Oral Sci. 2017;25:61-8.Giannini M, Takagaki T, Bacelar-Sá R, Vermelho PM, Ambrosano GMB, Sadr A et al. Influence of resin coating on bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin. Dent Mat J. 2015;34:822-7.Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, Burke FJ. Self-adhesive resin cements —chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38:295-314.De Munck J, Vargas M, Van Landuyt K, Hikita K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Bonding o fan auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater. 2004;20:963-71.Abo-Hamar SE, Hiller KA, Jung H, Federlin M, Friedl KH, Schmalz G. Bond strength of a new universal self-adhesive resin lutin cement to dentin and enamel. Clin Oral Invest. 2005;9:161-7.Aguiar TR, Di Francescantonio M, Ambrosano GM, Giannini M. Effect of curing mode on bod strength of self-adhesive resin luting cements to dentin. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010;93B:122-7.Asmussen E, Peutzeldt A. Bonding of dual-curing resin cements to dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2006;8:299-304.Cantoro A, Goracci C, Papacchini F, Mazzitelli C, Fadda GM, Ferrari M. Effect of pre-cure temperature on the bonding potential of self-etch and self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater. 2008;24:577-83.76.Hitz T, Stawarczyk B, Fischer J, Hämmerle CH, Sailer I. Are self-sdhesive resin cement a valid alternative to conventional resin cements? A laboratory study of the long-term bond strength. Dent Mater. 2012;28:1183-90.Özcan M, Bernasconi M. Adhesion to zirconia used for dental restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17:7-26.Ganapathy D, Sathyamoorthy A, Ranganathan H, Murthykumar K. Effect of resin bonded luting agents influencing marginal discrepancy in all ceramic complete veneer crowns. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:ZC67-ZC70.Lorenzoni E Silva F, Pamato S, Kuga MC, Só MV, Pereira JR. Bond strength of adhesive resin cement with different adhesive systems. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9:96-100.Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, Guess PC, Blatz MB. Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials: a review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014;26:382-93.