Evaluation of different irrigating solutions on smear layer removal of primary root dentin.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of ethanolic extract of Salvadora persica (S. persica) and BioPure MTAD (a mixture of a tetracycline isomer, an acid, and a detergent) in removing the intracanal smear layer of primary teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The root canal of 40 extracted human primary anterior teeth were cleaned, shaped and grouped into experimental (n = 30) and control (n = 10). The root canals of the positive (n = 5) and the negative control (n = 5) were irrigated for 3 minutes with 5 ml of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) or saline respectively. The canals in the experimental groups were irrigated for 3 minutes with 5 ml of 1 mg/ml ethanolic extract of S. persica (n = 15) or BioPure MTAD (n = 15) and then flushed with 2 ml of saline. The presence or absence of smear layer at the coronal and middle portion of each canal were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). RESULTS: A significant difference (p = 0.004) in smear layer removal between S. persica and MTAD at the middle third of the canal was observed. MTAD solution was as effective as 17% EDTA in removing the smear layer. CONCLUSION: MTAD was significantly more effective in smear layer removal than S. persica solution at the middle third of the canal wall. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both tested irrigant solutions have the ability to remove the intracanal smear from primary root dentin following cleaning and shaping of the root canal and could be an alternative to EDTA.

Evaluation of the effects of the VibraJect attachment on pain in children receiving local anesthesia.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of VibraJect, a vibrating attachment for a traditional syringe, in reducing pain related disruptive behavior and self-reported pain in children receiving local anesthesia. METHODS: The procedure involved a randomized, controlled, single-blinded study of 90 children receiving local anesthesia for routine restorative procedures. Participants were randomly assigned to either a control (injection as usual) or experimental (injection using the VibraJect) group. Participants were recruited from a large, urban pediatric dental clinic within a university medical center. RESULTS: Using 2-way analysis of variance and 2-tailed, between-subject t tests, there were no significant differences between injection with and without the VibraJect on any measures of pain, including self-reported intensity, independent direct observations of pain related disruptive behavior, and subjective dentist ratings. CONCLUSIONS: VibraJect did not provide any benefits over a conventional approach to anesthesia injection for children in this study.