Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Dent J (Basel) ; 10(11)2022 Oct 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36354646

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Obturation represents a critical step in endodontic treatment, which relies on a core material and a sealer. This study aims to evaluate the sealing ability and bond strength to the root canal walls of an epoxy resin-based sealer (AH-Plus®, Dentsply Sirona, Johnson City, TN, USA) and a bioceramic sealer (GuttaFlow Bioseal®, Coltène/Whaledent, GmbH + Co. KG, Langenau, Germany). METHODS: Thirty-eight maxillary anterior teeth with single roots and identical round sections were separated into two experimental groups according to the root canal sealers used, namely, G1 = AH-Plus® and G2 = GuttaFlow Bioseal®, and two control groups, specifically, G3 = the negative control and G4 = the positive control. The sealing capacity was measured by the penetration of the radioactive isotope 99mTc. For the push-out test, the compressive force test was performed in a universal machine and the force was applied by exerting pressure on the surface of the material to be tested in the apical to the coronal direction and using three test points with different diameters. RESULTS: GuttaFlow Bioseal® exhibited superior sealing ability compared to AH-Plus® (p = 0.003). Regarding the bond strength, AH-Plus® provided higher adhesion values than GuttaFlow Bioseal® in the three sections of the tooth root (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GuttaFlow Bioseal® had significantly better sealing ability than AH-Plus® but lower adhesion values in the three zones of the root canal, with statistically significant differences between the groups. However, it is important to note that for the action of endodontic sealers to be maximized, the root-filling technique must be most appropriate.

2.
Int J Mol Sci ; 22(1)2020 Dec 31.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33396354

RESUMEN

Cavity disinfection becomes an important step before a dental restorative procedure. The disinfection can be obtained cleaning the dental cavity with antimicrobial agents before the use of adhesive systems. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the effect of different cavity disinfectants on restorations' adhesion and clinical success. A search was carried out through the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science. In vitro and in situ studies reporting results on dentin bond strength tests, and clinical studies published until August 2020, in English, Spanish and Portuguese were included. The methodological quality assessment of the clinical studies was carried out using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Chlorhexidine could preserve adhesion to dentin. EDTA and ethanol had positive results that should be further confirmed. Given the significant lack of scientific evidence, the use of lasers, fluoridated agents, sodium hypochlorite, or other products as cavity disinfectants should be avoided. Chlorhexidine is a safe option for cavity disinfection with adequate preservation of adhesion to dentin. Moreover, future researches should be focused on the efficacy of these disinfectants against cariogenic bacteria and their best application methods.


Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos Locales/farmacología , Resinas Compuestas/química , Recubrimiento Dental Adhesivo/métodos , Recubrimientos Dentinarios/química , Dentina/efectos de los fármacos , Desinfectantes/farmacología , Desinfección/métodos , Humanos , Ensayo de Materiales
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...