Goffhowe3148
Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and
Tukey's test.
Statistically significant difference was not found in terms of the %GPv from the apex to apical 4 mm. However, the NCD group showed a statistically significant volume increase compared with the EAL group (
< 0.05).
In terms of gutta-percha occupied volume, no significant difference was observed among the 3 groups. Confluence confirmation using an EAL in teeth with Vertucci type II configuration showed less volume increase during canal shaping compared with no confluence confirmation.
In terms of gutta-percha occupied volume, no significant difference was observed among the 3 groups. Confluence confirmation using an EAL in teeth with Vertucci type II configuration showed less volume increase during canal shaping compared with no confluence confirmation.
The aim of this study was to compare smear layer removal by conventional application (CA), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), EasyClean (EC), and XP-Endo Finisher (XPF), using 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) after chemomechanical preparation, as evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Forty-five single-rooted human mandibular premolars were selected for this study. After chemomechanical preparation, the teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups according to the protocol for smear layer removal, as follows G1 (control) CA of distilled water; G2 (CA) CA of 17% EDTA; G3 (PUI) 17% EDTA activated by PUI; G4 (EC) 17% EDTA activated by EC; and G5 (XPF) 17% EDTA activated by XPF. SEM images (×1,000) were obtained from each root third and scored by 3 examiners. Data were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (
< 0.05).
In the apical third, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (
> 0.05). In the cervical and middle thirds, the experimental groups performed better than the control group (
< 0.05); however, G2 presented better results than G3, G4, and G5 (
< 0.05), which showed no differences among one another (
> 0.05).
No irrigation method was able to completely remove the smear layer, especially in the apical third. Using CA for the chelating solution performed better than any form of activation.
No irrigation method was able to completely remove the smear layer, especially in the apical third. Using CA for the chelating solution performed better than any form of activation.Root canal debridement, which includes the removal of infected tissues and microbial biofilms, is considered the corner stone of root canal treatment. Chemical adjuncts play a multitude of functions in this regard, as tissue solvents, antimicrobial agents and for removing the smear layer. These adjuncts (irrigants) are usually delivered using a syringe and needle. With increasing knowledge of the complexity of root canal anatomy and tenacity of microbial biofilms, the need for strategies that potentiate the action of these irrigants within the root canal system cannot be overemphasized. Several such activated irrigation strategies exist. The aim of this review is to comprehensively discuss the different irrigant activation methods from the context of clinical studies.
This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of buccal infiltration with piroxicam on the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with buccal infiltration in irreversible pulpitis, with pain assessed using the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (HP-VAS).
This study included 56 patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars, randomly distributed between 2 groups (
= 28). selleckchem After evaluating the initial pain score with the HP-VAS, each patient received IANB followed by buccal infiltration of 2% lignocaine with adrenaline (180,000). Five minutes later, the patients in groups 1 and 2 were given buccal infiltration with 40 mg/2 mL of piroxicam or normal saline, respectively. An access opening procedure (AOP) was performed 15 minutes post-IANB once the individual showed signs of lip numbness as well as 2 negative responses to electric pulp testing. The HP-VAS was used to grade the patient's pain during caries removal (CR), AOP, and working length measurement (WLM). Successful anesthesia was identified either by the absence of pain or slight pain through CR, AOP, and WLM, with no requirement of a further anesthetic dose. A statistical analysis was done using the Shapiro-Wilk and Mann-Whitney
tests.
The piroxicam group presented a significantly lower (
< 0.05) mean pain score than the saline group during AOP.
Buccal infiltration with piroxicam enhanced the efficacy of anesthesia with IANB and buccal infiltration with lignocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis.
Buccal infiltration with piroxicam enhanced the efficacy of anesthesia with IANB and buccal infiltration with lignocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis.
The reliability and educational quality of videos on YouTube for patients seeking information regarding instrument separation in root canal treatment were evaluated.
YouTube was searched for videos on instrument separation in root canal treatment. Video content was scored based on reliability in terms of 3 categories (etiology, procedure, and prognosis) and based on video flow, quality, and educational usefulness using the Global Quality Score (GQS). Descriptive statistics were obtained and the data were analyzed using analysis of variance and the Kruskal-Wallis test.
The highest mean completeness scores were obtained for videos published by dentists or specialists (1.48 ± 1.06). There was no statistically significant difference among sources of upload in terms of content completeness. The highest mean GQS was found for videos published by dentists or specialists (1.82 ± 0.96), although there was no statistically significant correlation between GQS and the source of upload.
Videos on YouTube have incomplete and low-quality content for patients who are concerned about instrument separation during endodontic treatment, or who experience this complication during endodontic treatment.
Videos on YouTube have incomplete and low-quality content for patients who are concerned about instrument separation during endodontic treatment, or who experience this complication during endodontic treatment.
