Aims:This study evaluated effect of infection control barriers on light intensity (LI) of light-curing unit (LCU) and microhardness of composite.Materials and Methods:Four different disposable barriers (n = 30) were tested against the control. LI for each barrier was measured with Lux meter. One hundred and fifty Teflon molds were equally divided into five groups of thirty each. Composite was filled in bulk in these molds and cured without and with barrier. Microhardness was evaluated on top and bottom surface of composite specimen with microhardness testing machine and hardness ratio (HR) was derived.Statistical Analysis Used:One-way analysis of variance, Tukey's honestly significant difference test, and paired t-test using SPSS version 18 software.Results:All barriers had significantly reduced the baseline LI of LCU (P < 0.0001), but only Cure Elastic Steri-Shield and latex cut glove pieces (LCGP) significantly reduced the microhardness of the composite (P < 0.05). However, HR determined inadequate curing only with LCGP.Conclusions:Although entire tested barrier significantly reduced the LI; none, except LCGP markedly affected the degree of cure of the composite.
Introduction:The objective of this study was to evaluate dentinal defects formed by new rotary system — Protaper next™ (PTN).Materials and Methods:Sixty single-rooted premolars were selected. All specimens were decoronated and divided into four groups, each group having 15 specimens. Group I specimens were prepared by Hand K-files (Mani), Group II with ProTaper Universal (PT; Dentsply Maillefer), Group III with Hero Shaper (HS; Micro-Mega, Besancon, France), and Group IV with PTN (Dentsply Maillefer). Roots of each specimen were sectioned at 3, 6, and 9mm from the apex and were then viewed under a stereomicroscope to evaluate presence or absence of dentinal defects.Results:In roots prepared with hand files (HFs) showed lowest percentage of dentinal defects (6.7%); whereas in roots prepared with PT, HS, and PTN it was 40, 66.7, and 26.7%, respectively. There was significant difference between the HS group and the PTN group (P < 0.05).Conclusion:All rotary files induced defects in root dentin, whereas the hand instruments induced minimal defects.
A thorough knowledge of root canal morphology is a prerequisite for the endodontic therapy. The maxillary molars, especially the second molars, have the most complicated root canal system in permanent dentition. There are many variations in canal number and configuration in maxillary molars. Treatment may be unsuccessful because the dentist may fail to recognize the unusual canal configuration. The present paper describes a case of a right maxillary second molar with a canal configuration rarely reported in the literature. The tooth had four roots with four root canals, two individual palatal roots (mesiopalatal and distopalatal) with their own separate canals. The mesiobuccal and distobuccal root had normal anatomy. This paper may intensify the complexity of maxillary molar variation and is intended to reinforce clinician's awareness of the rare morphology of root canals.
Advances in dentistry, as well as the increased desire of patients to maintain their dentition, have led to treatment of teeth that once would have been removed. Mandibular first molars are the most commonly extracted teeth due to dental caries and periodontal disease. These teeth are the major standpoint for occlusion, and also have a wide pericemental area. Hence, any defect in the root either mesial or distal, extraction is the most common treatment planned. Under specific conditions, only the diseased part of the tooth can be extracted after an endodontic treatment. A modified fixed partial denture design is fabricated to splint the remaining portion of the tooth to adjacent teeth. This procedure though daunting can be easily achieved and maintained successfully.
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.