Aim:This study compared the amount of aqueous-based and oil-based calcium hydroxide remaining in the canal, after removal with two different chelators 17% EDTA, 20% Citric acid and 0.2% Chitosan in combination with ultrasonic agitation.Methods and Material:Cleaning and shaping of root canals of 28 mandibular premolar was done and canals were filled either with Metapex or Ca(OH)2 mixed with distilled water. Volumetric analysis was performed utilizing cone beam-computed tomography (CBCT) after seven days of incubation. Ca(OH)2 was removed using either 17% EDTA, 20% Citric acid or 0.2% Chitosan in combination with ultrasonic agitation.Statistical analysis used:Volumetric analysis was repeated and percentage difference was calculated and statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test.Results:All the three chelators failed to remove aqueous-based as well as oil-based Ca(OH)2 completely from the root canal. Aqueous-based Ca(OH)2 was easier to be removed than oil-based Ca(OH)2. 0.2% Chitosan in combination with ultrasonics performed better than 17% EDTA and 20% citric acid in removal of Ca(OH)2.Conclusion:Combination of 0.2% Chitosan and ultrasonic agitation results in lower amount of Ca(OH)2 remnants than 17% EDTA, 20% Citric acid irrespective of type of vehicle present in the mix.
The Golden Proportion has been considered perfect, ideal, and desirable, and it has been used for many years by engineers and architects in studying beauty and in designing patterns and proportions. It has been proposed that the golden proportion is a useful tool for the evaluation of symmetry, dominance, and proportion in the diagnosis of tooth arrangement and in the application of esthetic dental treatment. The golden proportion is an element of design that a dental surgeon should be aware of. An understanding of this enigmatic proportion that has long stood for beauty may provide us with useful guidelines that can be combined with our existing knowledge and applied to our dental work for restoring dental esthetics with reasonable assurance of success.
Aim:The aim of the study was to assess the antibacterial efficiency of a combination of 1% alexidine (ALX) and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) against E. faecalis biofilm using a confocal scanning electron microscopy. Materials and methods: An estimated 120 human root dentin disks were prepared, sterilized, and inoculated with E. faecalis strain (ATCC 29212) to develop a 3-weeks-old biofilm. The dentin discs were exposed to group I-control group: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (n = 20); group II-1% ALX + 5.25% NaOCl (n = 40); group III-1% alexidine (ALX) (n = 40) (Sigma-Aldrich, Mumbai, India); group IV-negative control: saline (n = 20). After exposure, the dentin disks were stained with the fluorescent live/dead dye and evaluated with a confocal scanning electron microscope to calculate the proportion of dead cells. Statistical analysis was done using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05). Results: The maximum proportion of dead cells were seen in the groups treated with the combination of 1% ALX + 5.25% NaOCl (94.89%) and in the control group 5.25% NaOCl (93.14%). The proportion of dead cells presented in the 1% ALX group (51.79%) and negative control group saline (15.10%) were comparatively less.
Conclusion:The antibacterial efficiency of a combination of 1% ALX and 5.25% NaOCl was more effective when compared with 1% ALX alone. Clinical significance: Alexidine at 1% could be used as an alternative endodontic irrigant to chlorhexidine, as alexidine does not form any toxic precipitates with sodium hypochlorite. The disinfection regimen comprising a combination of 1% ALX and 5.25% NaOCl is effective in eliminating E. faecalis biofilms.
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.