This study concludes that much needs to be done to improve the understanding and practice of NICE guideline among the dental trainers and trainees.

The objective of this study was to determine the difficulties faced by house officers during endodontic procedures and refine the quality of therapy provided to masses. METHODOLOGY: A detailed survey form was given out to a total of 350 dental house officers, collected from seven different dental institutes in Karachi. A total of 60-80 survey forms were given out to each college, depending on the strength of house officers present, out of which 50 forms, on average, were returned and results were tabulated. The supervisor to house officer ratio recorded on average from these institutes was 1:7. WHO Calculator was used on the sample size of 350 entries and SPSS Version 22 was used to analyze the results. RESULT: The current study displays that majority of the house officers faced immense difficulties in the cleaning and shaping task of the endodontic procedure such as in cleaning and shaping and less problems were encountered when access opening and initial instrumentation were concerned. The most common difficulty faced by the house officers was that apical perforation resulted during the procedure (51.4%) followed by loss of estimated WL (51.1%), ledge formation (40.9%), file separation (39.1%), whereas using accessory GP while obturations was recorded as the most frequently encountered problem (56%). CONCLUSION: The current study displays the most commonly faced difficulties by fresh dental graduates during their house job. The major difficulties were faced during cleaning and shaping owing to increased incidence of ledge formation, apical perforation and loss of working length. Majority of the cases revealed gutta purcha extruding or short of the apex. Difficulty in administering IANB was also highly noted.

BACKGROUND: Dentine hypersensitivity is one of the most common chief complaints of patients observed by dentists in their practice. However, there is lack of universal consensus over the selection of reliable treatment modality. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness between dentine desensitizer and self-etch adhesive in patients complaining of moderate to severe dentine hypersensitivity pain. METHODS: A total 254 patients were randomly divided into Group A (Single Bond Universal Agent) and Group B (Seal & Protect Agent) according to the treatment provided. Sensitivity was assessed by means of mechanical (probing) and evaporative (air blast) stimuli. Discomfort Internal Scale (DIS) was explained to patients. DIS scores were recorded after one minute and one month following the application of both agents. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Stratification was done to control confounder and post stratification chi-square test was also applied. RESULT: The statistically significant difference (p= 0.000) in effectiveness between the two groups was observed. The mean discomfort internal scale score at baseline, after 1 minute and after 1 month in Group A was 3.65 ± 0.60, 2.33 ± 0.64 and 0.41 ± 0.71 respectively, while in Group B, it was 3.55 ± 0.58, 2.40 ± 0.62 and 0.72 ± 0.92 respectively. Overall, 86.6% patients observed improvement in dentinal sensitivity in Group A while in Group B only 67.7% patients reported reduction in sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Self-etch adhesive significantly reduces dentin hypersensitivity, immediately after one minute of its application and is effective for a period of one month when compared to desensitizing agent.

No abstract

No abstract