PURPOSEPost surface conditioning is necessary to expose the glass fibers to enable bonding between fiber post and resin cement. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of different surface conditioning on tensile bond strength (TBS) of a glass fiber reinforced post to resin cement.MATERIALS AND METHODSIn this in vitro study, 40 extracted single canal central incisors were endodontically treated and post spaces were prepared. The teeth were divided into four groups according to the methods of post surface treatment (n=10): 1) Silanization after etching with 20% H2O2, 2) Silanization after airborne-particle abrasion, 3) Silanization, and 4) No conditioning (Control). Adhesive resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) was used for cementation of the fiber posts to the root canal dentin. Three slices of 3 mm thick were obtained from each root. A universal testing machine was used with a cross-head speed of 1 mm/minute for performing the push-out tests. Two-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests were used for analyzing data (α=0.05).RESULTSIt is revealed that different surface treatments and root dentin regions had significant effects on TBS, but the interaction between surface treatments and root canal regions had no significant effect on TBS. There was significant difference among H2O2 + Silane Group and other three groups.CONCLUSIONThere were significant differences among the mean TBS values of different surface treatments. Application of hydrogen peroxide before silanization increased the bond strength between resin cements and fiber posts. The mean TBS mean values was significantly greater in the coronal region of root canal than the middle and apical thirds.

Objectives. Administration of medications such as dexmedetomidine as a topical anesthetic has been suggested in the pain control in dentistry. This double-blind randomized control trial study evaluated postoperative pain and associated factors following impacted third molar extraction surgery. Lidocaine alone was taken as the control and lidocaine plus dexmedetomidine as the intervention. Materials and Methods. Forty patients undergoing mandibular third molar extraction entered the study and were randomly allocated to the control and interventional groups. 0.15 ml of dexmedetomidine was added to each lidocaine cartridge and the drug concentration was adjusted to 15 μg for the intervention group while only lidocaine was used in the control group. A visual analog scale was used to measure and record pain levels at the end of the surgery and 6, 12, and 24 hours after the surgery and number of painkillers taken by the patients after the surgery was also recorded. Results. Pain scores of the intervention group decreased significantly during the surgery and also 6, 12, and 24 hours after the surgery compared to the control group. The pain score was correlated significantly with our intervention during the surgery and also 6 and 12 hours after that (all P   value < 0 . 05 ). There was a nonsignificant reduction in the number of painkillers taken by the patients at 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery (all P  value > 0 . 05 ). Conclusion. In patients undergoing molar surgery, administration of a combination of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine is beneficial for the pain control. Clinical Relevance. Compared to the injection of lidocaine alone, combination of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine can be used for a better pain control in molar surgeries.

No abstract

Introduction: Inflammation and infection can spread from the dental pulp to the periodontal tissue and from the periodontium to the pulp. Given the challenging nature of diagnosing endodontic-periodontal lesions and the importance of appropriate treatment to improve dental prognosis, this study was performed to evaluate the knowledge of dental students about the diagnosis of pulp and periodontal lesions. Materials & Methods: In this analytical observational study, a questionnaire was designed to assess knowledge on pulp and periapical lesions in three areas of theoretical knowledge, knowledge in diagnosis and knowledge in treatment in the second semester of the academic year 2021 and filled out by 400 dental students representing 15 cities of Iran. Data analysis was performed by Friedman, Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests (α = 0.05). Results: Percentage of correct answer of dental students to the questions related to theoretical knowledge 65.70 ± 18.39, percentage of correct answer to the questions of students' diagnostic knowledge 50.75 ± 33.28, percentage of correct answer to the questions of treatment knowledge 52.13 ± 23.93 and the percentage of correct answers to the questions of knowledge in total was 56.68 ± 16.35, which is statistically significant in terms of knowledge in the three areas studied (p value < 0.001). Conclusion: In the present study, it was shown that the highest level of appropriate knowledge in students is in the field of theoretical knowledge of endodontic-periodontal lesions and the least level of appropriate knowledge was in the field of diagnosis of these diseases. The overall knowledge of students in this study about endodonticperiodontal lesions was shown to be moderate.

Introduction: The choice between the two modes of treatment, endodontic treatment and single tooth implants are very different depending on the dentist, design, definition of successful outcomes, evaluation methods, and sample size. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic results of single tooth implants versus endodontic treatment with post and crown restoration in patients referred to the School of Dentistry of Islamic Azad University of Isfahan Materials & Methods: In this cross-sectional analytical study in the academic year 2021, 90 (46 females and 44 males) patients after recording demographic information and medical status, during three different time intervals post treatment (under 3 years, 3 to 5 years and Over 5 years) were examined clinically and radiographically (periapical). Outcome of treatment was classified based on clinical and radiographic findings into three categories: successful, surviving and unsuccessful. Data were analyzed using Chi-squared test (α = 0.05). Results: In this study, 60% of women and 40% of men had endodontic treatment and 42.2% of women and 57.8% of men had single tooth implants. There was no significant difference between the treatment outcomes in the studied groups (p value > 0.521). There was no statistically significant relationship between gender and type of treatment as well as gender and treatment satisfaction (p value > 0.05). Conclusion: Considering the preservation of natural teeth, if possible, root canal treatment is the main treatment of choice, otherwise a single-tooth implant can be a good alternative to missing or extracted teeth in terms of successful outcomes.