Micro-CT assessment of gap-containing areas along the gutta-percha-sealer interface in oval-shaped canals.

AIM: To assess the interfacial adaptation (gap-containing areas) of two root canal sealers (EndoSequence BC Sealer and AH Plus) to a conventional gutta-percha (GP) cone (GP-sealer interface) in oval-shaped canals filled using the single cone technique. METHODOLOGY: Sixteen teeth with oval-shaped canals were selected, scanned in a micro-computed tomographic device, and pair-matched according to the volume, aspect ratio and configuration of root canals. Root canals were then sequentially prepared with WaveOne Gold Primary and Large instruments, followed by filling with WaveOne Large GP points associated with either the premixed calcium-silicate EndoSequence BC Sealer or the epoxy resin-based AH Plus sealer (n = 8 per group) using the single cone technique. After 7 days stored in phosphate-buffered saline solution at 37°C, the specimens were rescanned and the reconstructed images segmented in order to differentiate the filling materials (sealer and GP cone) to the dentine. A total of 453 cross-sectional slices were assessed and categorized according to the presence or absence of gaps at the GP-sealer interface. Mann-Whitney U-test verified the differences between groups and were considered significant at alpha = 5%. RESULTS: Gaps were non-homogenously distributed in two-dimensional axial cross-section images and none of the specimens showed completely gap-free areas along the entire GP-sealer interface. Root canals filled with EndoSequence BC Sealer and AH Plus displayed 171 (37.75%) and 136 (30.02%) slices with gaps in the GP-sealer interface and these frequencies were statistically significant (p = .000). CONCLUSIONS: Although none of the specimens had a gap-free area along the entire GP-sealer interface, oval canals filled with AH Plus showed less gaps than the ones filled with EndoSequence BC Sealer.

Comparison between intra-articular ozone and placebo in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE:The aim of the trial was to determine the effectiveness of oxygen-ozone injections on knee osteoarthritis concerning pain reduction, joint functional improvement, and quality of life.METHODS:In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial, 98 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) were randomized into two groups receiving intra-articular 20 μg/ml of ozone (OZ) or placebo (PBO) for 8 weeks. The efficacy outcomes for knee OA were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Lequesne Index, Timed Up and Go Test (TUG Test), SF-36, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Geriatric Pain Measure (GPM).RESULTS:After 8 weeks of treatment, ozone was more effective than the placebo: VAS [mean difference (MD) = 2.16, p < 0.003 (CI 95% 0.42-3.89)], GPM [MD = 18.94, p < 0.004 (CI 95% 3.43-34.44)], LEQ [MD = 4.05, p < 0.001 (CI 95% 1.10-7.00)], WOMAC (P) [median of diff = 9.999, p = 0.019 (CI 95% 0.000-15.000)], WOMAC (JS) [median of diff = 12.499, p < 0.001 (CI 95% 0.000-12.500)], WOMAC (PF) = [median of diff = 11.760, p = 0.003 (CI 95% 4.409-19.119)], TUG (no statistical difference) and SF-36 (FC) [(MD = -25.82, p < 0.001 (CI 95% 33.65-17.99)], SF-36 (PH) [MD = -40.82, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -54.48-27.17)], SF-36 (GSH) [MD = -3.38, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -4.83-1.93)], SF-36 (SA) [MD = 2.17, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -19.67-8.24), SF-36 (EA) [MD = -35.37, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -48.86-21.89)]. Adverse events occurred in 3 patients (2 in the placebo group and 1 in the ozone group) and included only puncture accidents.CONCLUSIONS:The study confirms the efficacy of ozone concerning pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Comparison between intra-articular ozone and placebo in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the trial was to determine the effectiveness of oxygen-ozone injections on knee osteoarthritis concerning pain reduction, joint functional improvement, and quality of life. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial, 98 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) were randomized into two groups receiving intra-articular 20 µg/ml of ozone (OZ) or placebo (PBO) for 8 weeks. The efficacy outcomes for knee OA were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Lequesne Index, Timed Up and Go Test (TUG Test), SF-36, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Geriatric Pain Measure (GPM). RESULTS: After 8 weeks of treatment, ozone was more effective than the placebo: VAS [mean difference (MD) = 2.16, p < 0.003 (CI 95% 0.42-3.89)], GPM [MD = 18.94, p < 0.004 (CI 95% 3.43-34.44)], LEQ [MD = 4.05, p < 0.001 (CI 95% 1.10-7.00)], WOMAC (P) [median of diff = 9.999, p = 0.019 (CI 95% 0.000-15.000)], WOMAC (JS) [median of diff = 12.499, p < 0.001 (CI 95% 0.000-12.500)], WOMAC (PF) = [median of diff = 11.760, p = 0.003 (CI 95% 4.409-19.119)], TUG (no statistical difference) and SF-36 (FC) [(MD = -25.82, p < 0.001 (CI 95% 33.65-17.99)], SF-36 (PH) [MD = -40.82, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -54.48-27.17)], SF-36 (GSH) [MD = -3.38, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -4.83-1.93)], SF-36 (SA) [MD = 2.17, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -19.67-8.24), SF-36 (EA) [MD = -35.37, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -48.86-21.89)]. Adverse events occurred in 3 patients (2 in the placebo group and 1 in the ozone group) and included only puncture accidents. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms the efficacy of ozone concerning pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTNR55861167.