Search

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the marginal fit of inlays fabricated using conventional and digital impression techniques through stereomicroscopic analysis. Methods: A total of 50 inlays were fabricated, with 25 in each group: conventional impression and digital impression. Marginal fit was assessed using a stereomicroscope at 20x magnification. Mean marginal gap measurements were recorded at predetermined locations (mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual), and statistical analysis was performed to compare the marginal fit between the two groups. Results: The digital impression group exhibited significantly smaller mean marginal gap measurements compared to the conventional impression group at all measured locations (p < 0.001). The mean marginal gap measurements ranged from 52.6 to 58.9 microns in the digital impression group and from 64.2 to 72.1 microns in the conventional impression group. Conclusion: In conclusion, digital impression techniques demonstrated superior marginal fit accuracy compared to conventional impression methods in the fabrication of inlays. These findings highlight the potential of digital technologies to enhance the precision and accuracy of dental restorations, ultimately improving clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to assess the effectiveness of various gutta-percha retrieval methods in endodontic retreatment., Methods: Five groups were randomly allocated to extract human teeth that had already had root canal therapy: manual files, rotary tools, heat, solvents, and ultrasonics. By evaluating the amount of filling material still present, gutta-percha clearance was quantitatively examined, and root canal cleanliness was qualitatively appraised. To compare the effectiveness of retrieval approaches, statistical analysis was done., Findings: Hand files, heat, and solvents were less effective than rotary devices and ultrasonics at removing gutta-percha ( P < 0.05). A quantitative investigation showed that the groups using rotary instruments (0.87 mm) and ultrasonics (0.68 mm) had much less gutta-percha left. The qualitative evaluation revealed that rotary instruments (2.12) and ultrasonics (2.45) had greater cleaning ratings compared to other methods., Conclusion: In conclusion, gutta-percha can be effectively removed during endodontic retreatment by using rotary tools and ultrasonics, which provide both quantitative efficiency and qualitative purity. The implementation of sophisticated retrieval procedures to maximize treatment results in clinical practice is supported by these findings., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences.)

Background: " Root canal treatment (RCT)" is essential in preserving natural dentition by eliminating infection within the root canal system. Irrigation solutions play a crucial role in achieving successful RCT outcomes by facilitating disinfection and debris removal., Methods: An in vitro experimental design was employed to evaluate the irrigation solutions. Antimicrobial efficacy was assessed using agar diffusion assays against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans. Tissue dissolution ability was evaluated by measuring the weight loss of dentin specimens. Cytotoxicity was assessed using cell viability assays with human periodontal ligament fibroblasts., Results: NaOCl demonstrated the highest antimicrobial efficacy, while EDTA exhibited superior tissue dissolution ability. CHX and QMix displayed lower cytotoxicity compared to NaOCl and EDTA., Conclusion: The choice of irrigation solution in RCT should consider factors such as antimicrobial efficacy, tissue dissolution ability, and cytotoxicity. NaOCl remains effective but has high cytotoxicity, whereas CHX and QMix offer alternatives with lower cytotoxicity. EDTA is effective in tissue dissolution but should be used cautiously due to cytotoxic potential. Clinicians should weigh the benefits and limitations of each solution for optimal treatment outcomes., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences.)