Aim: This experimental study in vitro aimed to compare the disinfection of the primary teeth root canals system using the rotary and reciprocating file system. Methodology: Forty-eight root canals from twenty-four primary molar teeth were contaminated with the standard strain of Enterococcus faecalis and randomically splitted into 4 groups (n=12). The Group PN comprised the root canals prepared with the ProTaperTM  Next rotary system. The Group WOG was defined by the usage of WaveOneTM Gold reciprocating system. The files from both systems were thermo mechanical processed. The Group PU used the ProTaperTM Universal system, with no thermic treatment, and the Group C (negative control) received no treatment. Samples from the root canals were collected with sterile paper points before and after its preparation, diluted and distributed in plates with Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) agar. The bacterial colonies were counted and the results were statistic analyzed by Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis (Dunn) tests. Results: There was significant bacterial reduction using the systems (p>0,01). However, there was no significant difference among them (p<0,05) (PN=3.38; WOG=3.85; PU=3.26). Conclusion: Both systems (rotary and reciprocating) provide disinfectionon the primary molar teeth root canals system.

Introduction: Oral implants rehabilitation has increased in the recent years. In order to reduce failures, some studies have been published pointing the risk factors and using antibiotic prophylaxis as an alternative to prevent infections in patients submitted to implant surgery, despite the fact it is still controvertial in the literature. Objective: Answer the following question: "Does antibiotic prophylaxis reduce the rates of postoperative infection or implant loss?" Methodology: Only randomized controlled clinical trials which analyzed implant loss or postoperative infection in patients undergoing surgery for single or multiple implants, without graft association, were selected. Results: Four randomized controlled trials were included. A total of 827 patients and 1.320 implants were used. The studies had different surgical approaches. Two of them showed multiple implant surgeries and the other two showed single implants. The first parameter assessed was the presence of postoperative complications, which were different between groups. Pain was the parameter present in all of them; The second parameter was implant stability which was evaluated by the studies around the 4 th month after surgery, using mobility as the main criteria of implant loss, although other criteria have been used in association. All studies evaluated the administration of amoxicillin 1h prior to the surgery and a placebo group. The most used protocol was 2 g of amoxicillin (3 studies); only one study used 3g of amoxicillin. This review was submitted to a meta-analysis of three parameters: implant survivor after a minimum period of 2 months, rate of postoperative infection per patient and rate of postoperative infection per implant. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Conclusion: There is still no consistent evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis plays a beneficial role in preventing postoperative infections.