Search

The aim was to investigate the influence of endodontic irrigation solutions and protocols on the micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentin using an etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etch (SE) adhesive approach. Eighty extracted human molars were ground to dentin. After pretreating for 27 min (21 min–3 min–3 min) with five different endodontic irrigation protocols (Group 1: NaOCl–EDTA–NaOCl; Group 2: NaOCl–NaOCl–EDTA; Group 3: NaOCl–NaCl–NaOCl; Group 4: Dual Rinse–Dual Rinse–Dual Rinse; Group 5: NaCl–NaCl–NaCl), an ER (Optibond FL, Kerr) or a SE (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray) adhesive system was applied. After light-curing, composite build-ups were made and cut into dentin-composite sticks. μTBS and failure modes were analyzed. Nonparametric statistical analyses (α = 0.05) were performed for comparison of the five groups within each type of adhesive as well as between the two adhesive systems used. The use of an ER instead of a SE adhesive system resulted in significantly higher μTBS for all irrigation protocols except for group 1 (NaOCl–EDTA–NaOCl) and 2 (NaOCl–NaOCl–EDTA). A statistical difference between the five different endodontic irrigation protocols was only found within the SE adhesive group, where group 1 (NaOCl–EDTA–NaOCl) achieved highest values. The use of an ER adhesive system cancels out the effect of the endodontic irrigation solution. The highest μTBS was achieved when using a NaOCl–EDTA–NaOCl-irrigation protocol in combination with Clearfil SE Bond, which shows that the selection of the endodontic irrigation should match the corresponding SE adhesive system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the influence of conventional (10 s at 1160 mW/cm2) and fast high-irradiance (3 s at 2850 mW/cm2) light curing on the micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) of bulk-fill resin composites bonded to human dentin. Sixty-four extracted human molars were ground to dentin and randomly assigned into eight groups (n = 8 per group). After application of a three-step adhesive system (Optibond FL), four different bulk-fill composites (two sculptable and two flowable composites) were placed. Of these, one sculptable (Tetric PowerFill) and one flowable (Tetric PowerFlow) composite were specifically developed for fast high-irradiance light curing. Each composite was polymerized with the conventional or the fast high-irradiance light-curing protocol. The specimens were cut into dentin-composite sticks, μTBS was determined and failure modes were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using t-test for independent observations and one-way ANOVA. A statistical difference between the curing protocols was only found for Tetric PowerFlow, where the conventional protocol (23.8 ± 4.2 MPa) led to significantly higher values than the fast high-irradiance light-curing protocol (18.7 ± 3.7 MPa). All other composite materials showed statistically similar values for both polymerization protocols. In conclusion, the use of fast high-irradiation light curing has no negative influence on the μTBS of the investigated high-viscosity bulk-fill composites. However, it may reduce the dentin bond strength of flowable bulk-fill composite. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 1999, the laryngeal tube (VBM Medizintechnik, Sulz, Germany) was introduced as a new supraglottic airway. It was designed to allow either spontaneous breathing or controlled ventilation during anaesthesia; additionally it may serve as an alternative to endotracheal intubation, or bag-mask ventilation during resuscitation. Several variations of this supraglottic airway exist. In our study, we compared ventilation with the laryngeal tube suction for single use (LTS-D) and a bag-mask device. One of the main points of the revised ERC 2005 guidelines is a low no-flow-time (NFT). The NFT is defined as the time during which no chest compression occurs. Traditionally during the first few minutes of resuscitation NFT is very high. We evaluated the hypothesis that utilization of the LTS-D could reduce the NFT compared to bag-mask ventilation (BMV) during simulated cardiac arrest in a single rescuer manikin study. Methods: Participants were studied during a one day advanced life support (ALS) course. Two scenarios of arrhythmias requiring defibrillation were simulated in a manikin. One scenario required subjects to establish the airway with a LTS-D; alternatively, the second scenario required them to use BMV. The scenario duration was 430 seconds for the LTS-D scenario, and 420 seconds for the BMV scenario, respectively. Experienced ICU nurses were recruited as study subjects. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two groups first (LTSD and BMV) to establish the airway. Endpoints were the total NFT during the scenario, the successful airway management using the respective device, and participants' preference of one of the two strategies for airway management. Results: Utilization of the LTS-D reduced NFT significantly (p < 0.01). Adherence to the time frame of ERC guidelines was 96% in the LTS-D group versus 30% in the BMV group. Two participants in the LTS-D group required more than one attempt to establish the LTS-D correctly. Once established, ventilation was effective in 100%. In a subjective evaluation all participants preferred the LTS-D over BMV to provide ventilation in a cardiac arrest scenario. Conclusion: In our manikin study, NFT was reduced significantly when using LTS-D compared to BMV. During cardiac arrest, the LTS-D might be a good alternative to BMV for providing and maintaining a patent airway. For personnel not experienced in endotracheal intubation it seems to be a safe airway device in a manikin use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 1999, the laryngeal tube (VBM Medizintechnik, Sulz, Germany) was introduced as a new supraglottic airway. It was designed to allow either spontaneous breathing or controlled ventilation during anaesthesia; additionally it may serve as an alternative to endotracheal intubation, or bag-mask ventilation during resuscitation. Several variations of this supraglottic airway exist. In our study, we compared ventilation with the laryngeal tube suction for single use (LTS-D) and a bag-mask device. One of the main points of the revised ERC 2005 guidelines is a low no-flow-time (NFT). The NFT is defined as the time during which no chest compression occurs. Traditionally during the first few minutes of resuscitation NFT is very high. We evaluated the hypothesis that utilization of the LTS-D could reduce the NFT compared to bag-mask ventilation (BMV) during simulated cardiac arrest in a single rescuer manikin study.Methods: Participants were studied during a one day advanced life support (ALS) course. Two scenarios of arrhythmias requiring defibrillation were simulated in a manikin. One scenario required subjects to establish the airway with a LTS-D; alternatively, the second scenario required them to use BMV. The scenario duration was 430 seconds for the LTS-D scenario, and 420 seconds for the BMV scenario, respectively. Experienced ICU nurses were recruited as study subjects. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two groups first (LTS-D and BMV) to establish the airway. Endpoints were the total NFT during the scenario, the successful airway management using the respective device, and participants' preference of one of the two strategies for airway management.Results: Utilization of the LTS-D reduced NFT significantly (p < 0.01). Adherence to the time frame of ERC guidelines was 96% in the LTS-D group versus 30% in the BMV group. Two participants in the LTS-D group required more than one attempt to establish the LTS-D correctly. Once established, ventilation was effective in 100%. In a subjective evaluation all participants preferred the LTS-D over BMV to provide ventilation in a cardiac arrest scenario.Conclusion: In our manikin study, NFT was reduced significantly when using LTS-D compared to BMV. During cardiac arrest, the LTS-D might be a good alternative to BMV for providing and maintaining a patent airway. For personnel not experienced in endotracheal intubation it seems to be a safe airway device in a manikin use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]