Aim:Aim of this in vitro study was to compare the tensile bond strength of UniFil Bond (GC America) vs iBond (Heraeus Kulzer) in conjunction with light cure composite resin (Venus, Heraeus Kulzer).Materials and MethodsSixty mandibular molars were taken and divided into 3 groups which were treated with UniFil Bond, iBond and no adhesive respectively. The tensile test was performed using an Instron machine.ResultsThe results showed that multibottle systems (UniFil Bond, i.e., two-step)performed 30% better as compared with single bottle systems (all-in-one, i.e., one-step bonding agents).Conclusion:It can be concluded that UniFil Bond (Multibottle system – 6thgeneration type I) performed better than iBond (Single Bottle system – 7th generation.

This study involves evaluating the accuracy of two electronic apex locators (EALs), Raypex and Neosono Co-pilot. Ten single-root human anterior teeth were used for the study. The crown was sectioned to gain access to the root canal. For each tooth, the reference (or control) length, corresponding to the actual length, was determined, after which all the teeth were measured independently. The results obtained with each EAL were in turn compared with the corresponding control length. The statistical analysis of the results showed that EAL reliability in detecting the apex varies from 80 to 85% for Neosono systems and 85 to 90% for the Raypex systems. Combined with a high observer concordance, these results suggest that electronic root canal measurement can be an objective and acceptably reproducible technique.

Introduction: The aim of this systematic review is to analyse the effect of physico-chemical properties of calcium silicate-based sealers in comparison to epoxy resin sealers in permanent teeth using a single-cone obturation technique. Methods: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Literature search was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, DOAJ, Open Gray with no language restrictions until October 2020. Two reviewers assessed the studies for eligibility. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was carried out to assess the evidence. Meta-analysis of the pooled data with subgroups was performed using the RevMan software (p < 0.05). Results: Results from the 28 included studies showed that the mean difference in adaptation to root canal walls (marginal adaptation, interfacial gaps and void volume) for both sealers were non-significant. However, void volume values showed a significant mean difference (p < 0.00001) favouring the calcium silicate-based sealers. The pooled meta-analysis reported statistically significant differences for apical microleakage (p = 0.0007) whilst there were non-significant mean differences for fracture resistance (p = 0.09) and push-out bond strength (p = 0.63). The heterogeneity among the included studies was 97% (I2). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this review, calcium silicate-based sealers demonstrated a similar or superior performance in comparison to resin-based sealers in terms of the physico-chemical properties.

Chlorhexidine is a widely used antiseptic and disinfectant in medical and non-medical environments. Compared to its ubiquitous use, allergic contact dermatitis from chlorhexidine has rarely been reported and so its sensitization rate seems to be low. Chlorhexidine has been used for more than 50 years but it was only in the last two decades, that reports of immediate- type reactions to chlorhexidine were seen. Reactions ranging from localized urticaria to anaphylactic shock and hypersensitivity reactions, including delayed hypersensitivity reactions such as contact dermatitis, fixed drug eruptions, and photosensitivity reactions, began to appear more frequently. However the prevalence of contact urticaria and anaphylaxis due to chlorhexidine remains to be unknown. In this case report we have reported a case of urticaria due to oral use of chlorhexidine. The adverse reaction was confirmed by a skin prick test.

The current systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to compare the diagnostic accuracy of pulp vitality and pulp sensibility tests in assessing pulpal health. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Open Grey databases were searched and after assessing eligibility criteria the data were extracted. True-positive, false-positive, true-negative, false-negative, sensitivity and specificity values were extracted or calculated if not presented. Quality of studies was evaluated based on the QUADAS 2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed in MetaDTA (v2.0; Shinyapps, RStudio PBC, Boston, MA, USA) and Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan web; The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Ten articles were included for qualitative synthesis and five for meta-analysis. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio for pulse oximeter (PO), electric pulp tester (EPT), cold test (CT) and heat test (HT) was 628.5, 10.75, 17.24 and 3.47, respectively. Pairwise comparison demonstrated a higher pooled mean sensitivity and specificity with PO compared with EPT. Comparison between PO and CT and between PO and HT also demonstrated a higher pooled mean sensitivity and specificity for PO. Summary points on receiver operating characteristic curves confirmed the ability of PO to correctly screen negatives in presenting patients as compared to EPT, CT and HT but no study was rated as good on quality assessment. PO can be considered as the most accurate diagnostic method as compared to EPT, CT and HT. This review provides information about the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of using pulp vitality and sensibility tests for assessing pulp status.