Introduction: Dental Fluorosis is one of the common reasons of an unesthetic smile affecting confidence of patient. Depending upon the duration and exposure to fluoride, it can be mild, moderate or severe. Case Report: The present case report aimed to rehabilitate esthetically a patient with fluorosis, rotated teeth and spacing in maxillary anterior region using a conservative approach. Results: The post-operative esthetic appearance of the patient was enhanced and follow up to one year showed acceptable and stable esthetic outcomes. Conclusion: Though, there are various treatment modalities available for esthetic makeovers, accurate diagnosis, diligent treatment planning and choice of available materials can lead to better esthetic results.

Background: Adhesive bonding in deep sub-gingival areas is a challenge due moist environment leading to poor marginal seal and microleakage in deep class II cavities. The deep margin elevation technique is advocated in such areas. Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate enamel, a natural substrate as an alternative material for deep margin elevation, and compare it with the resin-modified glass ionomer and composite material by evaluating microleakage at the tooth-restoration interface in Class II cavities. Materials and Methods: For this study 21 patients having at least one tooth indicated for extraction and 7 patients having at least two teeth indicated for extraction were included.Class II cavities were prepared on the 28 teeth with proximal margins 1mm below the CEJ and were divided into 4 groups(n=7) Group 1: flowable composite was used for deep margin elevation(DME) up till 2mm above CEJ, Group 2: RMGIC was used for DMEup till 2 mm above CEJ, Group 3: enamel slab luted with RMGIC (for DME)up till 2mm above CEJ,enamel slab obtained from other seven teeth of same patient also indicated for extraction, Group 4(control): no intermediate material was used for margin elevation. Then the remaining part of the cavities were restored using the FILTEK P60. The prepared teeth were extracted after one week. The class II cavities were evaluated for microleakage using dye penetration method. Results: RMGIC and enamel slab showed significantly less microleakage as compared to flowable composite and the control group. However there was insignificant difference between RMGIC and Enamel slab group. The control group exhibited highest microleakage as compared to all the other groups. Conclusion: RMGIC and enamel slab exhibit least microleakage when used as materials for deep-margin elevation.

Root canal system acts as an 'affluent sanctuary' for the growth and survival of endodontic microbiota. This is attributed to the special environment which the microbes get inside the root canals. Although variety of microbes such as viruses and fungi have been isolated from the root canal system, bacteria are the most commonly found to be associated with Endodontic infections. These are the first to reach the pulp and initiate the pulpal reaction through direct pulp exposure, lateral/accessory canals or through periodontal membrane and blood stream. The oral cavity is home to multiple anatomic micro niches which may vary from birth to old age due to changes in oral environment however root canal being the closed space harbours different microbiota including gram negative and positive microorganisms. To achieve the best results with root canal therapy it becomes important to have knowledge about the residing microbiota and how to combat them.

Objective: The study was done to evaluate the average time taken by the operators to apply the rubber dam, procedure time and the acceptability or rejection of placement of rubber dam by the patients during endodontic treatment procedures. Design: The study was carried out on 450 patients requiring endodontic treatment reported at department during the time interval of May, 2021 to August, 2021. Out of 450 patients, 180 patients were randomly selected for the study by lottery method. All the endodontic procedures were performed under rubber dam isolation and rubber dam application time and time for isolation was determined. Further, a questionnaire survey was performed to evaluate the patient’s acceptance or rejection of procedures rubber dam and various reasons for rejection. Results: The highest number of respondents belonged to 21-30 years of age group i.e. 26.6% followed by 31-40 years i.e. 26.11%. Average rubber dam application time and procedure time were estimated as 4.04 and 44.07 minutes respectively. More than 90 % of the participants were willing to accept the procedure under rubber dam isolation in future. However, on contrary, only 9.44 % of the participants rejected the procedure under rubber dam isolation and the most common reasons for rejection were uneasiness felt by the patient and difficulty in breathing. Conclusions: The acceptability of rubber dam isolation while performing endodontic procedures/ treatments was quite significant among the patients. Very few patients had allergy to the latex material of rubber dam sheets and respiratory disorders.