Background:Toothbrushes may play a significant role in plaque control. Toothbrushes should be correctly stored, disinfected and changed at regular intervals.Objective:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gluconate solution and ultra violet (UV) toothbrush-sanitizer for toothbrush disinfection.Materials and Methods:Fresh tooth brushes were distributed to fifteen study subjects, who were selected randomly and who met the study criteria. All the study participants were asked to brush their teeth with the tooth brush provided. No special instructions were given regarding the brushing techniques. Toothbrushes were collected after 7 days. All tooth brushes were randomly allocated to three groups. Tooth brushes were subjected to microbial analysis and total bacterial count was assessed. Tooth brushes allocated to Group I were soaked in 2% CHX mouthwash for 12 h, Group II were kept in UV-light toothbrush holder for 7 min, and Group III were soaked in normal saline for 12 h. All the toothbrushes were subjected for microbial analysis and mean bacterial count was determined.Results:There was a statistically significant difference between mean colony-forming unit count pre-sanitization and post-sanitization in all the groups, using 0.2% CHX gluconate, UV rays and normal saline (P < 0.007). However, the mean bacterial count reduced drastically after the treatment with UV rays (P = 0.001).Conclusions:CHX, UV rays and normal saline are effective in a reduction of bacterial count on toothbrushes. UV rays treatment was more effective, when compared to CHX and normal saline.
Background: Dental caries begins with the decalcification of the first nonorganic part, followed by the decay of the organic tooth matrix. Minimally invasive dentistry (MID) focuses on using the adhesive technique for restoration as these techniques allow minimum removal of healthy tooth structure. Objective: This study aimed to assess the attitude, knowledge, and behavior of the general dentists toward the use of MID and to evaluate if MID is considered as standard care measure among general dentists. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-section observational survey and included 285 practicing dentists. The survey questions were divided into two parts. The question related to the use of sharp explorer utilized response categories (1–5), with options of always, most of the time, often, sometimes, and never or rarely. The independent variables collected were age, gender, years of practice, clinical hours, type of practice, postgraduate education, and clinic environment. The data collected were tabulated and were statistically analyzed. Results: The results of the present study showed that MID meets the standard of care for the treatment of both primary teeth 85.96% ( n = 245) as well as permanent teeth 78.24% ( n = 223). ART, sandwich technique, in-office, and at-home topical fluoride application were considered active for treating dental caries. The use of sharp explorers, nonsharp explorers, radiographs, and magnification were considered common for caries detection. Conclusion: The more dentists who listened to about MID in the past responded that the MID concept is the standard of care for the treatment of primary and permanent teeth than dentists who have heard little or nothing about MID.
Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effect of three different commercially available intra-orifice barriers and bleaching agents on root canal-treated teeth. Materials and methods Forty-five freshly extracted single-rooted incisors, canine, and premolars were collected and stored in 10% formalin. Root canal procedures were performed on the extracted teeth and these were classified into three groups and three subgroups (n=5). Group 1: resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC); placed at the level of cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and cured for 20 seconds. Group 2: Biodentin TM (Septodont Ltd., Saint Maur des Fausse´s, France); powder and liquid were mixed according to the manufacturer's instructions and placed at the level of CEJ, and waited for 15 minutes to set. Group 3: bulk-fill composite; placed at the level of CEJ. Group A was treated with 35% carbamide peroxide (Ultradent Opalescence 35% PF regular). Group B was bleached with 35% hydrogen peroxide (Pola Office). Group C, which was the control group, was treated with distilled water. The bleaching procedure was repeated once every seven days for a period of three weeks. After bleaching, every sample was sectioned 2 mm above the level of CEJ to remove the crown. Auniversal testing machine (UTM) was used for the evaluation of the fracture resistance of teeth. Data were analyzed for significance by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and further pair-wise comparison was performed by pos-hoc analysis. The level of significance was set at p<0.05 Results There was a significant difference between the fracture resistance of the three materials when bleached using distilled water (p<0.05). The fracture resistance of Group 3 was significantly greater than that of Group 2 and Group 1 (p<0.05). The difference in the fracture resistance between Group 1 and Group 2 was nonsignificant (p>0.05). Conclusion Walking bleach performed via bleaching agents 35% carbamide peroxide and 35% hydrogen peroxide leads to a reduction in the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth; 35% hydrogen peroxide causes more fracture resistance reduction than carbamide peroxide of the same concentration. The presence of intra-orifice barriers leads to greater fracture resistance and reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth that undergo the walking bleach procedure. Bulk-fill composite can be used as an intra-orifice barrier with good fracture resistance.
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.