Propolis means a gum that is gathered by bees from various plants. It is known for its biological properties, having antibacterial, antifungal and healing properties. The aims of this study were to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of four different Anatolian propolis samples on different groups of microorganisms including some oral pathogens and comparison between their chemical compositions. Ethanol extracts of propolis (EEP) were prepared from four different Anatolian propolis samples and examined whether EEP inhibit the growth of the test microorganisms or not. For the antimicrobial activity assays, minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were determined by using macrodilution method. The MIC values of the most effective propolis (TB) were 2 microg/ml for Streptococcus sobrinus and Enterococcus faecalis, 4 microg/ml for Micrococcus luteus, Candida albicans and C. krusei, 8 microg/ml for Streptococcus mutans, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Enterobacter aerogenes, 16 microg/ml for Escherichia coli and C. tropicalis and 32 microg/ml for Salmonella typhimurium and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The chemical compositions of EEP's were determined by high-temperature high-resolution gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. The main compounds of four Anatolian propolis samples were flavonoids such as pinocembrin, pinostropin, isalpinin, pinobanksin, quercetin, naringenin, galangine and chrysin. Although propolis samples were collected from different regions of Anatolia all showed significant antimicrobial activity against the Gram positive bacteria and yeasts. Propolis can prevent dental caries since it demonstrated significant antimicrobial activity against the microorganisms such as Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sobrinus and C. albicans, which involves in oral diseases.

No abstract

Cetrexidin and 2% chlorhexidine gluconate were more effective, and had more residual antibacterial effects and lower toxicity than 5.25% NaOCl solution.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vivo efficacy of three intracanal medicaments (Ca(OH)2, 1% chlorhexidine gel and 1% chlorhexidine gel with Ca(OH)2 against Enterococcus faecalis in necrotic primary teeth. As a conclusion, chlorhexidine gel with or without Ca(OH)2 was more effective than Ca(OH)2 alone against Enterococcus faecalis.

The study emphasizes the need for effective mechanisms to reduce the microbial contamination in DUWS, and highlights the risk for cross-infection in general dental practice.

The aim was to test the null hypotheses that there is no difference: (1) in carious lesion development at the restoration margin between class II composite resin restorations in primary molars produced through the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel and (2) in the survival rate of class II composite resin restorations between two treatment groups after 2 years. Three hundred twenty-seven children with 568 class II cavitated lesions were included in a parallel mouth study design. Four operators placed resin composite (Filtek Z 250) restorations bonded with a selfetch adhesive (Adper prompt L pop). Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations after 0.5, 1, and 2 years using the modified Ryge criteria. The Kaplan-Meier survival method was applied to estimate survival percentages. A high proportion of restorations were lost during the study period. Therefore, the first hypothesis could not be tested. No statistically significant difference was observed between the cumulative survival percentages of restorations produced by the two treatment approaches over the 2-year period (ART, 54.1±3.4%; ART with Carisolv™, 46.0± 3.4%). This hypothesis was accepted. ART with chemomechanical gel might not provide an added benefit increasing the survival percentages of ART class II composite resin restorations in primary teeth.

The aims of this study were to verify the occurrence of dental injuries in 343 amateur Turkish soccer players in İzmir and the level of knowledge of the teams' soccer players about mouthguards. The soccer players were interviewed to determine the occurrence of dental trauma during soccer and mouthguard usage level. The data were analyzed with descriptive analysis to determine absolute and relative frequencies of answers for each one of the questions. Only 35 (10.2%) soccer players reported the occurrence of some type of dental injury during soccer practice. Regarding emergency conducts, approximately 84 players (24.48%) answered that replantation could be obtained after teeth avulsion, 23 players (27.38%) answered that successful replantation could be obtained within 2 hours immediately after injury, and 60.71% were not able to answer this question. Regarding mouthguard use, 61.8% of soccer players did not know about mouthguards. It was possible to conclude that dental injuries are common during amateur soccer practice and that there is a lack of information in the soccer players related to the emergency conducts and prevention of dental trauma.