Comparative Evaluation of the Push-Out Bond Strength of Glass Ionomer Cement, Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Biodentine, and Endosequence Root Repair Material in Repair of Furcation Perforations: An In Vitro Study.

Introduction: An in vitro comparative analysis was performed to calculate the push-out bond strength of commercially existing root repairing cements like glass ionomer cement (GIC), biodentine, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), and endosequence root repair material (RRM) employed in furcation perforation, with or without blood contamination present. Materials and Methods: Eighty molars were selected and subjected to furcal perforations. They were categorized based on the cement used for repair (GIC, MTA, biodentine, and endosequence RRM); furthermore, they were sub-divided into two sub-groups, that is, blood contaminated and non-contaminated. For 24 hours, all the samples were kept in an incubator till the materials were fully set. Then these samples were examined for push-out bond strength measurement. Results: The 24-hour push-out bond strength of was the highest in biodentine and the lowest in glass ionomer cement. The push-out bond strength of endosequence RRM, MTA, and GIC was influenced by blood contamination. Conclusion: The push-out bond strength of biodentine was the highest as compared to endosequence RRM, MTA angelus, and GIC. The push-out bond strength of endosequence RRM and MTA angelus after 24 hours with or without blood contamination showed insignificant differences. Group 1A (GIC contaminated with blood) displayed the least push-out bond strength among other groups.

Enhancing collaboration during humanitarian response: an interim report from stakeholders survey.

The effectiveness of humanitarian response efforts has long been hampered by a lack of coordination among responding organizations. The need for increased coordination and collaboration, as well as the need to better understand experiences with coordination, were recognized by participants of a multilateral Working Group convened to examine the challenges of coordination in humanitarian health responses. This preliminary study is an interim report of an ongoing survey designed by the Working Group to describe the experiences of coordination and collaboration in greater detail, including factors that promote or discourage coordination and lessons learned, and to determine whether there is support for a new consortium dedicated to coordination. To date, 30 key informants have participated in 25-minute structured interviews that were recorded and analyzed for major themes. Participants represented 21 different agencies and organizations: nine non-governmental organizations, eight academic institutions, two donor organizations, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. Common themes that emerged included the role of donors in promoting coordination, the need to build an evidence base, the frequent occurrence of field-level coordination, and the need to build new partnerships. Currently, there is no consensus that a new consortium would be helpful. Addressing the underlying structural and professional factors that currently discourage coordination may be a more effective method for enhancing coordination during humanitarian responses.