ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the capacity of 2% chlorhexidine gel associated with 8% papain gel in comparison with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite in bovine pulp tissue dissolution.Materials and MethodsNinety bovine pulps of standardized sizes were used and fragmented into 5-mm sizes. The fragments were removed from the root middle third region. They were divided into 6 experimental groups (n = 15), 1) 8% papain; 2) 2% chlorhexidine; 3) 2% chlorhexidine associated with 8% papain; 4) 0.9% saline solution; 5) 2.5% sodium hypochlorite; and 6) 5.25% sodium hypochlorite. The pulp fragments were weighed and put into immobile test tubes for dissolution for time intervals of 30, 60, 90, and 120 min.ResultsThe 5.25% sodium hypochlorite had greater dissolution potential than the pure papain, and when associated with chlorhexidine, both promoted greater dissolution than did the saline solution and 2% chlorhexidine groups (p < 0.05). The 2.5% sodium hypochlorite promoted dissolution to a lesser extent than the groups with papain within a period of 30 min (p < 0.05), but, was comparable to the saline solution and chlorhexidine. After 120 min, the 2.5% and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite promoted dissolution of 100% of the pulp fragments, and papain, 61%, while chlorhexidine associated with papain and chlorhexidine alone dissolved only 55% and 3%, respectively.ConclusionsThe 8% papain in gel, both alone and in association with chlorhexidine, was able to dissolve bovine pulp tissue, but to a lesser extent than did 5.25% sodium hypochlorite.
Objective: In this study, simulations were performed by the finite element method (FEM) to determine the tension and displacement in mini-implants and in expander appliance during rapid maxillary expansion, by varying the number and location of the mini-implants. Methods: For the computational simulation, a three-dimensional mesh was used for the maxilla, mini-implants and expander appliance. Comparisons were made on six different Mini-implant Assisted Rapid Palatal Expander (MARPE) configurations, by varying the amount and location of mini-implants. A closed suture was design and received two activations of 0.25 mm, and an open suture had a 0.5-mm aperture that received 20 activations, also of 0.25 mm. Results: For the closed suture, the maximum displacement values in the mini-implants were between 0.253 and 0.280 mm, and stress was between 1,348.9 and 2,948.2 MPa; in the expander appliance, the displacement values were between 0.256 and 0.281 mm, and stress was between 738.52 and 1,207.6 MPa. For the open suture, the maximum displacement values in the mini-implants were between 2.57 and 2.79 mm, and stress was between 5,765.3 and 10,366 MPa; in the appliance, the maximum displacements was between 2.53 and 2.89 mm, and stress was between 4,859.7 and 9,157.4 MPa. Conclusions: There were higher stress concentrations in the mini-implant than in the expander arm. In the simulations with a configuration of three mini-implants, stress overload was observed in the isolated mini-implant. Displacements of the mini-implants and arms of the appliance were similar in all simulations.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate which material and technique were the best for bonding 3x3 lingual retainer. One hundred and five bovine mandibular incisors were used, to which contention bars with a standardized size of 7 mm were bonded to the lingual surface. Initially all teeth received prophylaxis with pumice stone and water. After this they were randomly divided into seven groups, denominated and characterized as follows: Group (1) bars bonded with Transbond XT in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions; (2) Tooth surface etching with self-etching agent Transbond (SEPT) followed by bonding with Transbond XT; (3) Bonding with Transbond Plus Color Change (TPCC) without adhesive; (4) Bonding with TPCC + SEPT; (5) Bonding with restorative composite Z100 + adhesive Prime Bond, (6) Z100 without adhesive and (7) Z100 + SEPT. Before bonding in Groups 1, 3, 5 and 6 the lingual surface was etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 20 seconds, followed by washing and drying. After bonding the mechanical tests were performed in a Universal mechanical test machine. The values obtained were submitted to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and afterwards to the Tukey test (p<0.05). We observed absence of statistical differences among Groups 1, 2, 5 and 7 and among Groups 3, 4, 5 and 6 (p<0.05). Group 1 presented the highest bond strength value and Group 6 the lowest. It could be concluded that where bonding of lingual retainer is concerned; the best material to use is Transbond XT irrespective of the etching method, followed by composite Z100 etched with SEPT.
ABSTRACT:The focus of this study was to evaluate the capacity to dissolve pulp tissue of various combinations of papain-based gels and other antimicrobial agents. 105 bovine pulps were used, of standardized sizes, fragmented into 15mm-sized portions and weighed on an analytical balance, divided into 7 groups (n=15): 1 -0.9% Saline Solution (negative control); 2-8% Papain gel; 3-8% Papain gel + 0.5% Chloramine; 4-0.5% Chloramine gel; 5-8% Papain gel + 2% Chlorhexidine; 6-2% Chlorhexidine gel; and 7-5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite solution (positive control). After initial weighing, the pulp fragments were inserted in test tubes for dissolution for time intervals of 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes, and then weighed again. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p<0.05). In the time interval of 120 minutes the 0.5% chloramine gel demonstrated 64.9% ability to pulp dissolve, followed by 8% papain gel with 61.3%; papain associated with 0.5% chloramine, 58%; and papain associated with 2% chlorhexidine, 55.4%; which showed statistically significant difference with 5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite (p<0.05). All the gels that contained papain and the 0.5% chloramine gel promoted pulp tissue dissolution, however on a significantly lower scale than 5.25% sodium hypochlorite. The 2% chlorhexidine demonstrated no capacity to dissolve pulp, as did the control.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.