Objective:The apical constriction (AC) and the apical foramen (AF) are the principal reference points used to determine the apical limit for instrumentation and root canal filling. AC varies in different races, and the aim of the current study was to measure and compare the distances from AC to AF and the anatomical apex (AA) in incisor and molar teeth in the Iranian population.Materials and Methods:Forty-five roots of incisor teeth and 45 roots of molar teeth were selected randomly in Isfahan Province, Iran. If the foramen was located toward the mesial or distal side of the apex, the cut was made mesiodistally, and if it was toward the buccal or lingual side, the section was made accordingly. Roots were examined under a microscope at ×25 magnification. The distances from AC to AF and AA were then estimated using a Motic camera. Descriptive statistics were used. The independent t-test was also used to compare distances in incisors and molars, and P = 0.05 was deemed to indicate statistical significance.Results:The mean distances between AC and AF were 0.847 ± 0.33 mm in incisors and 0.709 ± 0.27 mm in molars. The mean distances between AC and AA were 1.23 ± 0.39 mm in incisors and 1.01 ± 0.38 mm in molars. In an independent t-test, the distances between AC and AF differed significantly in incisors and molars (P = 0.035), but the distances between AC and AA did not (P = 0.172).Conclusion:The end points for root canal therapy should be 0.85 mm in incisors and 0.70 mm in molars.

Aim To investigate the effect of magnesium sulphate used as an adjuvant to lidocaine with epinephrine local anaesthetic on the success of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) in patients with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment. Methodology In a double-blind clinical trial, following power calculation, 124 patients with symptoms of irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molar teeth were selected and initial pain data was collected using a Heft-Parker (Heft & Parker 1984) visual analogue scale. The first group (control) received IANB with 1.8 mL of a local anaesthetic solution containing 1.8% lidocaine with 1:88,000 epinephrine whist the second group (test) received IANB with 1.8 mL of an anaesthetic solution containing 1% magnesium sulphate, and 1.8% lidocaine with 1:88,000 epinephrine. Pain data was collected after access cavity and penetration of files in the canals using a Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Two patients were not included in the study as they did not consent and a further 54 patients were excluded as they did not report lip numbness within 15 minutes after IANB administration, thus the data presented in this study is related to 68 patients. The data were analyzed using chi-square and t-test (=0.05). Results The success of pulpal anaesthesia with IANB was 82% for the magnesium sulphate group and 53% for the control group. There was a significant difference in the effectiveness of the IANB between the 2 groups (P < .001). There was no significant difference between the magnesium sulphate and control groups regarding gender (P =.598) or age (P = .208) or initial pain scores (p =.431). Conclusions The addition of 1% magnesium sulphate to 1.8% lidocaine with 1:88,000 epinephrine resulted in a positive impact for the success of IANB in patients with a diagnosis of irreversible pulpitis related to mandibular molar teeth undergoing root canal treatment. Thus magnesium sulphate may be used as adjuvant for achieving profound pulpal anaesthesia in challenging cases. However, more studies with larger sample size and different concentration doses must be carried out to establish an appropriate conclusion before its routine clinical use.

No abstract

No abstract

Background:Halitosis is the presence of unpleasant or foul smelling breath. The origin of halitosis may be related to both systemic and oral conditions, but a large percentage of cases, about 90%, is generally related to an oral cause. The aim of this study was to compare the concentration of urea and uric acid in patients with halitosis and people without halitosis.Materials and Methods:In this case–control study, concentration of urea and uric acid was compared between two groups: (1) persons suffering halitosis (2) control group without halitosis. Each group includes fifty patients. Unstimulated saliva was collected in both groups. Then, concentration of urea, uric acid, and creatinine was determined. The results were statistically analyzed with SPSS software version 14 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) by t-test (α = 0.05).Results:Results showed that salivary urea and uric acid concentration in halitosis group were significantly greater than control group (P < 0.05). Salivary creatinine concentration in halitosis group was significantly lower compared to control group (P < 0.05). Salivary urea and uric acid concentration to creatinine ratios were higher in halitosis group than control group, and significant differences between them were existed (P < 0.05).Conclusion:According to the results, urea and uric acid concentration show increase in patient suffering halitosis, and this increase may result in oral malodor.