RESUMO
Aim This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of different materials used in composite core buildups, including conventional filler composite, nanofiller composite, and short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC). Methods This in vitro study was conducted on 30 freshly extracted premolars. The teeth were treated using a uniform endodontic procedure, and Fiber Posts (REFORPOST, Angelus) were placed. The teeth were then divided into three groups and restored using different materials. Group 1 was restored using SFRC (everX Posterior, GC, Europe), Group 2 using microfiller composite (Te-Econom Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent), and Group 3 using nanofiller composite (Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent). The restoration materials were then light-cured for 40 seconds. The teeth were placed in a Universal Testing Machine (Instron) and a load was applied with a stainless-steel ball (4 mm diameter) until the tooth fractured. The fracture load for each tooth was recorded, and after the mechanical test, the experimental groups were examined for failure modes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0 software. A one-way ANOVA test was conducted to compare more than two groups, followed by Tukey's test for post hoc pairwise comparison. Results The mean fracture resistance of the microfiller composite (346.94±44.63) was the lowest among the three groups. When analyzed using Tukey's test at p<0.05, fracture resistance was significantly higher in the SFRC, followed by nanofillers and microfiller composites. Conclusion Due to the increasing demand for aesthetic restorations in recent years, composites have become important in modern restorative dentistry. The development and implementation of composite dental restorative materials rely on a comprehensive understanding of each composite component and consideration of methods for modifying each component. As a result, the findings of this study will be beneficial in determining which material to use based on specific cases.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The success of any dental prosthesis depends on aesthetics and function. A proper shade selection is a prime requisite for providing aesthetics to dental patients. PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the photographic method of shade selection with that of a digital spectrophotometer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 50 participants. The primary inclusion criterion was the presence of the maxillary left central incisor without a history of restorative or endodontic procedures. The shade of the left maxillary central incisor was determined using the VITA Easyshade V spectrophotometer (VITA Zahnfabrik, BadSäckingen, Germany) and the digital photography method for all the selected participants. The CIELAB colour space utilizes three values (L*, a*, and b*) to objectively measure colour. While the digital photography approach used Adobe Photoshop software (Adobe Systems Incorporated, San Jose, CA) to report solely the L*, a*, and b* values, the spectrophotometer reported the L*, a*, and b* values along with the actual shade. After obtaining the values of L*, a*, and b*, ΔE, which is their difference, was calculated using a standard formula. Statistical analysis was carried out by using Student's t-test and proportion z-test. RESULTS: When the comparison of the L*a*b* values was done, Student's t-test showed similar (P>0.05) L(t=0.16, P=0.872), a (t=0.52, P=0.607), and b (t=0.23, P=0.820) values between the two groups; that is, they did not differ significantly or showed perfect matching. There was agreement (ΔE≤2) in 42 (84.0%) cases and disagreement (ΔE>2) in eight (16.0%) cases. The proportion z-test showed an agreement of 84.0%, which was statistically highly significant (z=20.44, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The true shade of the teeth can be depicted using standardized digital images.
RESUMO
Given the lingering threat of COVID infection, questions are being raised if coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine needs annual or regular boosters to maintain high levels of immunity against both the original virus and variants. This study was designed to evaluate the knowledge, acceptance, motivators and barriers of the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine among the dental patients of District Lucknow, India. A total of 297 respondents were selected by a convenience sampling method in this cross-sectional study from various dental clinics. An anonymous, self-administered, closed-ended questionnaire was used. Overall 37.7% respondents reported to have taken all 3 doses and 57.9% had taken single/double doses. Correct information about booster doses shows a significant association with the number of doses taken. The majority had information about the availability of the Pfizer booster vaccine (69.0%). About 58% of participants had information about the technology used in booster doses. The hesitancy for booster doses and the development of natural immunity by infection show significant associations with the number of doses taken. Only 18.2% patients had hesitation about the booster dose and most of them 78.8% recommended others to take the booster vaccine as soon as possible. The majority assumed that previous COVID-19 vaccines can help them get immune (21.5%) followed by not much research has been done on the booster vaccines (15.5%) and their chronic diseases warn them against the booster dose administration (12.5%). Nearly 18.2% of respondents had hesitation about booster dose and less than one third of the respondents trusted a government source for information about booster dose of COVID vaccine. Nearly 36 % did not know that the booster dose of COVID vaccine is available at health centers. Dental health professionals and policymakers should implement and support strategies to ensure people are vaccinated for COVID-19 booster doses.