Objectives:It was aimed to investigate the temperature changes in primary teeth pulp chamber during the curing/setting of bulk-fill restorative materials with different nanoparticle contents.Methods:Twenty-five extracted, primary mandibular second molars were prepared as a Class II cavity. Five bulk-fill restorative materials consisting of Equia Fil (HVGIC), glass carbomer (GC) cement, Sonic Fill (SF), X-tra Fil (XF), and Quix Fil (QF) were tested. The measurement of the pulp chamber temperature changes (starting temperature 37°C) during setting/curing was performed with a J type thermocouple. The data, differences between highest and initial temperature values, were recorded and analyzed by one-way ANOVA.Results:The temperature changes in the pulp chamber were in EF (2.81°C), GC (7.92°C), SF (3.33°C), XF (3.43°C), and QF (3.02°C). There were statistically significant differences between temperature changes in groups (P < 0.05).Conclusion:The tested bulk-fill resin composites and high-viscosity glass ionomer cement do not increase the intrapulpal temperature in primary teeth during the curing/setting.
Comparative evaluation of apical sealing ability of different root canal sealers PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the short and long term apical sealing ability of different root canal sealers. Materials and methodsFifty-five extracted human anterior single-root teeth were used. The coronal part of each tooth was removed and the root canals were prepared with NiTi rotary instruments. Teeth were divided into 5 study groups; Group I: MTA Fillapex (Angelus, Brazil); Group II: Sealapex (Sybron-Kerr, Romulus, MI, USA) and Group III: AH Plus (Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) (n=15) and negative and positive control groups (n=5). The quality of root canal sealing was assessed by a fluid filtration method performed at 24 h and 180-day time intervals. Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests were used to compare the groups. ResultsAt 24 h evaluation, MTA Fillapex presented significantly less microleakage than the Sealapex and AH Plus (p<0.05). At long term interval (180-day), Sealapex and AH Plus presented significantly less microleakage than the MTA Fillapex (p<0.05). ConclusionSealapex and AH Plus showed significantly better sealing abilities than MTA Fillapex in the long term.
Objective:The aim was to determine the antimicrobial effect of ozonated water, ozonated water with ultrasonication, sodium hypochloride and chlorhexidine (CHX) in human primary root canals contaminated by Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis).Materials and Methods:Fifty-eight extracted human primary molar teeth were used. Crowns were cut off using a diamond saw under water-cooling. One hundred roots were obtained and mechanically prepared. The roots were then sterilized by autoclaving in water for 15 min at 121°C. All samples were contaminated with E. faecalis for 24 h and the root canals were randomly divided into five groups (n = 20). Group I: 25 mg/L of Ozonated water (O3aq), Group II: 25 mg/L of O3aq with ultrasonication, Group III: 2.5% Sodium hypochloride (NaOCl), Group IV: 2% CHX and Group V: Positive control. The canal of each specimen was irrigated for 4 min and positive control was untreated. All root canals were agitated with sterile saline solution. The saline solution was collected from canals with sterile paper points. For each specimen, the paper points were transposed to eppendorf vials containing 2 ml of brain heart infusion. According to bacterial proliferation, the mean values of optical density were achieved by ELİSA (Biotek EL ×800, Absorbance Microplate Reader, ABD) and the data were analyzed.Results:NaOCI, CHX and two types of O3aq were found statistically different than positive control group. NaOCI irrigation was found significantly most effective.Conclusions:NaOCl, CHX and O3aq applications provide antibacterial effect in vitro conditions in primary root canals.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.