Search

Background: The dreaded sensation of pain in the dental chair has a significant impact on children's behavior. This study aimed to compare and contrast the perception of pain and patient behavior between the use of INJEX and the conventional syringe needle technique during pulpotomy among children. Methods: A randomized clinical trial was designed and conducted among pediatric dentistry patients aged 6–12 years old. Fifty-eight children were divided into two groups, conventional syringe needle and INJEX, using simple randomization method applying the sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelope method of allocation concealment. Anesthesia was administered to the groups as local infiltration by a single operator following routine behavior guidance techniques. After 3 min, pulpotomy was performed using the standard protocol. The Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale and Wong–Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (WBS) were used to assess the intensity of pain, while the Frankl behavior rating scale (FBRS) was used to assess the children's behavior. Results: During anesthesia, most of the participants in the INJEX group (median = 3) had higher FBRS scores compared with the conventional syringe needle group (median = 2), and the difference was very highly significant (p-value < 0.001). Analyzing the FLACC scores during local anesthesia administration revealed a high statistical significance (p-value < 0.01) across the two groups. A very high statistically significant difference (p-values < 0.001) with higher WBS scores for pain intensity was seen in the group using conventional syringe needles. Conclusions: INJEX administration significantly reduced the intensity of pain experienced by the children and helped maintain a positive attitude among them during pulpotomy. It provided a positive and comfortable experience for both the child and the practitioner. Therefore, it can serve as an excellent alternative to conventional needle anesthesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND This computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) study aimed to evaluate the effects of thermocycling on deep margin elevation relocation of subgingival cavity outlines in 80 molar teeth using advanced lithium disilicate ceramic. MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighty mandibular molar teeth were prepared for deep margin elevation below the cementoenamel junction. The following types of restorations were subsequently applied to each group: glass ionomer filling, bulk-fill flowable resin composite, bioactive resin composite, and nanohybrid resin composite. Full-coverage crowns with standardized preparation and a shoulder finish line were prepared to receive CAD/CAM-milled advanced lithium disilicate crowns. Samples were examined at 6 equidistant points via digital microscope on each proximal surface at the restoration-tooth and crown-restoration interfaces before and after thermocycling for 15 000 cycles. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, at a level of significance of 0.05. RESULTS The vertical marginal gap was significantly higher after aging and was the highest for glass ionomer filling, 9.091 (±1.147) and 9.936 (±6.376) µm, followed by nanohybrid resin composite, 3.59 (±1.03) and 3.87 (±0.97) µm, bioactive resin composite, 3.17 (±0.81) and 2.59 (±0.21) µm, and bulk-fill flowable resin composite, 1.89 (±0.60) and 2.42 (±0.64) µm, at the cervical and apical interfaces, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Thermocycling significantly changed the marginal adaptation of all restorative materials. Highest values for marginal adaptation were recorded in the glass ionomer filling group, followed by nanohybrid composite and bioactive resin groups, whereas lowest values were recorded among the bulk-fill flowable resin composite group at cervical and apical interfaces.

Objective: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is characterized by a short, sharp pain in response to a thermal or tactile stimulus. The application of desensitizing agents such as GLUMA and laser is a non-invasive and safe approach to decrease sensitivity. The evidence for the efficacy of GLUMA desensitizer compared to laser desensitization in patients with DH was evaluated for 6 months., Design: In March 2022, an electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted. Articles published in English that compared GLUMA and laser in the treatment of DH with a follow-up of 6 months or more were included. Randomized, non-randomized controlled trials, and clinical trials were included. Risk of bias assessment tools developed by the Cochrane collaboration ROB 2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess the quality of studies. The GRADE assessment method was used to assess the certainty of evidence., Results: About 36 studies were identified in the search results. After applying the predefined eligibility criteria, eight studies with 205 participants and 894 sites were included in this review. Of the eight studies, four were judged to be at high risk of bias, three had some concerns, and one had a serious risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was graded as low., Conclusion: Based on limited evidence, GLUMA and laser appear to be equally effective in providing relief from DH. GLUMA showed an immediate effect and provided pain relief. Over the course of a week, laser showed long-term stable results. GLUMA is effective in providing immediate relief.