ABSTRACT
Introduction: Glass-ionomer (GIC) cement was introduced in 1972 as a "new filling material of dentistry". It is bioactive and plays an important role in caries prevention due to its ability to release fluoride into the oral environment and remineralization of dental hard tissues. However, its properties such as moisture sensitivity, wear resistance, and bond strength are not sufficient to inflict the antimicrobial environment. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the antibacterial property of four different GIC cements against S. mutans and L. acidophilus. Methodology: This study was conducted on 120 disk-shaped samples (30 for antibacterial activity), which were placed in Petri dishes holding Müeller Hinton agar. Bacterial strains were overhauled in the brain heart infusion culture medium, and by utilizing disposable straps on blood agar medium, 100 ml of the strain inoculum was plated out. Through the diffusion method on the solid medium, the antibacterial activity of GIC was determined. Results: The antibacterial activity was the highest for Riva silver and chemifill rock for 24 and 72 hours, respectively. For 48 hours, Equia forte and chemifill rock had the highest antibacterial activity, and there was a significant difference between the groups. Conclusion: Ketac™ molar easymix inhibited the growth of S. mutans and L. acidophilus but had the lowest antibacterial effect compared to other GICs.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: With the advent of mini-implants, Class II correction has become routine. The study's goal was to compare the "Bone-Anchored Pendulum Appliance (BAPA)" to the "Bone-Anchored Intraoral Bodily Molar Distalizer (BAIBMD)" in terms of clinical efficacy. Materials and Procedures: Five boys and five girls were among the 10 patients in this split-mouth trial who had to have their molars distalized. On one side, BAPA Construction, and on the other, BAIBMD was piloted. A titanium mini-screw was used to secure both appliances to the bone since this was a spilled-mouth technique. The first molar bands to apply 200 g of force were used for both devices, as with all the other components that were similar for both appliances. For both sides, the nature, duration, and rate of tooth movement were compared. Using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, descriptive statistics for several parameters were examined. Results: Distalization was accomplished on both sides with clinical success. The rate of distalization did not show any significant variation. Less time was needed for distalization with BAPA, as evidenced by the statistically substantial variances in treatment duration between the two groups. Molar tipping was noticed in BAPA, and it was statistically significant. Conclusion: While the pace of distalization was equal for both appliances, BAIBMD required more time than BAPA but resulted in a distal tooth movement that was mostly translatory in nature.