Materials and Methods: The research question was developed by using Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study design framework. Literature search was performed using 3 electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost until October 2019. Two reviewers were independently involved in the selection of the articles and data extraction process. Risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) based on 5 domains.
Results: Thirteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The overall risk of bias was moderate. QMix was found to have better smear layer removal ability than mixture of tetracycline isonomer, an acid and a detergent (MTAD), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), and phytic acid. The efficacy was less effective than 7% maleic acid and 10% citric acid. No conclusive results could be drawn between QMix and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid due to conflicting results. QMix was more effective when used for 3 minutes than 1 minute.
Conclusions: QMix has better smear layer removal ability compared to MTAD, NaOCl, Tubulicid Plus, and Phytic acid. In order to remove the smear layer more effectively with QMix, it is recommended to use it for a longer duration.
Materials and Methods: The research question was developed by using population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design framework. The literature search was performed using 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost until October 2019. The additional hand search was performed from the reference list of the eligible studies. The risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0).
Results: Fourteen studies were included in this systematic review. The overall risk of bias for the selected studies was moderate. QMix was found to have a higher antimicrobial activity compared to 2% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 2% chlorhexidine (CHX), mixture of tetracycline isonomer, an acid and a detergent (MTAD), 0.2% Cetrimide, SilverSol/H2O2, HYBENX, and grape seed extract (GSE). QMix had higher antibacterial efficacy compared to NaOCl, only when used for a longer time (10 minutes) and with higher volume (above 3 mL).
Conclusions: QMix has higher antibacterial activity than 17% EDTA, 2% CHX, MTAD, 0.2% Cetrimide, SilverSol/H2O2, HYBENX, GSE and NaOCl with lower concentration. To improve the effectiveness, QMix is to use for a longer time and at a higher volume.
Trial Registration: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews Identifier: CRD42018096763.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-four DUs were shown 15 clinical case scenarios and asked to decide on treatment plans based on 4 treatment options. The most appropriate treatment plan had been decided by a consensus panel of experienced dentists. DUs then underwent DPI training using an online video. In a post-DPI-training test, DUs were shown the same clinical case scenarios and asked to assign the best treatment option. After 6 weeks, DUs were retested to assess their knowledge retention. In all 3 tests, DUs completed the confidence level scale questionnaire. Data were analyzed using the related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test and the independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test with the level of significance set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: DPI training significantly improved the mean scores of the DUs from 7.53 in the pre-DPI-training test to 9.01 in the post-DPI-training test (p < 0.001). After 6 weeks, the mean scores decreased marginally to 8.87 in the retention test (p = 0.563). DPI training increased their confidence level from 5.68 pre-DPI training to 7.09 post-DPI training.
CONCLUSIONS: Training DUs using DPI with an online video improved their decision-making and confidence level in treatment planning.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: Fifty human permanent single rooted and single canaled freshly extracted teeth were decoronated and sectioned apically to prepare the middle third of root sections of 5 mm length. The canals were prepared in a step-back manner. OrthoMTA was packed throughout the prepared canals. These root sections were incubated for one week and subsequently randomly allocated to five groups (n = 10) according to the OrthoMTA removal method: No treatment (NT); 5% glycolic acid + ultrasonics (5% GA+U); 10% glycolic acid + ultrasonics (10% GA+U); 10% citric acid + ultrasonics (10% CA+U); Distilled water + ultrasonics (DW+U). A 1 mm deep well was created within the coronal end of the set OrthoMTA. Wells were filled with each respective test solution and left for 5 min. Thereafter, further removal of OrthoMTA used a specific ultrasonic tip. Finally, the canals were flushed using 1 mL of the respective test solutions and activated with a Controlled Memory ultrasonic tip for two cycles of 20 s each followed by flushing with 1 mL of distilled water and paper point drying of the canals. Then, specimens were longitudinally split into two halves and examined under a scanning electron microscope (1000×) to assess the residual OrthoMTA and surface topography of root canal dentin. The Vickers surface microhardness of treated radicular dentin was measured using the HMV-2 microhardness tester.
RESULT: Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. Significant differences for residual OrthoMTA were observed between (10% GA+U) with (5% GA+U), (10% CA+U), (DW+U) and (NT) (p value < 0.01). In the context of microhardness, (5% GA+U) and (10% GA+U) showed statistically significant difference compared to (NT), (10% CA+U) and (DW+U) (p value < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: 10% GA+U was superior to other tested groups in removing OrthoMTA, but it substantially reduced dentin microhardness.
Methods: A 33-item EI questionnaire was completed by 46 dental undergraduates in a cross-sectional study. Responses, measured on a five-point Likert scale, were summed to yield EI scores. Patients treated by the same undergraduates were invited to complete a patient satisfaction (PS) questionnaire. EI and PS scores were calculated and compared by undergraduates' gender and the patients' age and education status. The four EI factors (optimism/mood regulation, appraisal of emotions, utilization of emotions, and social skills of students) were correlated with PS using Spearman's correlation test with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
Results: EI scores did not differ significantly between male (N = 23) and female (N = 23) undergraduates (p=0.218). PS was not associated with patients' gender, but those educated to the secondary school level were more likely to be satisfied compared to those educated to the college/university level (p=0.022). Of the four EI factors, optimism/mood regulation was positively correlated with PS (p=0.049).
Conclusion: The results of the study suggest that the EI of the students can influence PS. Practical Implications. Interventions to enhance EI can be developed to improve the patient experience.
METHODS: Three extracts of ginger (Zingiber officinale) rhizome prepared by maceration using the respective solvents and 6-shogoal were reconstituted in normal saline with 0.2% DMSO. Thirty C57BL/6 15-week-old mice were divided into 5 groups: Group 1, saline; Group 2, 70% methanol extract; Group 3, 80% ethanol extract; Group 4, 100% DMSO extract; and Group 5, 6-shogaol. The baseline pilocarpine-stimulated salivary flow rate was measured at the age of 15 weeks (15th week), and treatment solutions were administered by intraperitoneal injection from the 16th to 18th week. The stimulated salivary flow rate during treatment weeks was recorded for each group, and its difference with baseline was analysed using paired-sample t test. The change in salivary flow rate between the treatment groups and the control group was analysed using one-way analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 showed a significant increase in salivary flow rate when compared to baseline (P < .05). The increase in salivary flow rate in all 4 treatment groups was significant when compared to the control group (P < .05). Group 4 produced the highest increase in salivary flow rate; however, the differences amongst the treatment groups did not reach statistical significance (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: All GR extracts (70% methanol, 80% ethanol, 100% DMSO) and 6-shogaol were equally effective in increasing the pilocarpine-stimulated salivary flow rate in C57BL/6 mice when administered systemically as a sustained dose for 3 weeks.
METHODS: Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) was performed after complete hydrolysis of K21 solution. Human teeth were inoculated with biofilms for 7-days followed by treatment with various irrigants. The irrigant groups were Sodium hypochlorite [NaOCl (6%)], Chlorhexidine [CHX (2%)], K21 (0.5%), K21 (1%) and Saline. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed for biofilm and resin-dentin penetration. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) of biofilms was done to evaluate application of K21. For in vivo evaluation, Albino wistar rats were injected subcutaneously and sections were stained with haematoxylin/eosin. Macrophage, M1/M2 expression were evaluated along with molecular simulation. Raman measurements were done on dried biofilms.
RESULTS: FTIR K21 specimens demonstrated presence of ethanol/silanol groups. Raman band at 1359 cm-1 resemble to -CH2- wagging displaying 29Si atoms in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). 0.5%K21 showed cells exhibiting folded membranes. SEM showed staggering amount of resin tags with 0.5% K21 group. TEM showed membrane disruption in K21-groups. K21 groups were initially irritant, which subsided completely afterwards showing increased CD68. K21 and MMP/collagen complex was thermodynamically favourable.
CONCLUSION: K21 root canal irrigant was able to penetrate bacterial wall and can serve as a potential irrigant for therapeutic benefits. Expression of M2 polarized subsets showed K21 can serve in resolving inflammation and potentiate tissue repair.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An audit checklist with 13 criteria for good documentation was adapted from guidelines proposed by the American Association of Orthodontists and British Orthodontic Society. Orthodontic chart documentation in 103 removable appliance therapy patients under 4th and 5th year dental undergraduates' care was retrieved from the electronic record of the University dental clinic and audited. The audit exercise explored in detail the thirteen criteria for good documentation and eight assessment attributes of the first criterion, namely, basic orthodontic examination. The level of compliance was measured as the percentage records meeting the criteria. The data were statistically analysed using SPSS 26.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
RESULTS: There was no complete compliance for any of the criteria. Thirty-five (33.9%) patient charts reported basic orthodontic examination documentation adequately. Compliance was the highest for documentation of treatment modality (77.6%), appliance delivery encounters (77.6%), and appliance adjustment appointments (83.5%). About 51.4% of the 68 patient charts (treatment of 35 patients of the total 103 were in the progress stage) stated adequately the outcome of treatment. Only 22% of the 68 patient charts had the details for retention protocol. There was statistically significant difference in chart documentation between male and female students for basic orthodontic assessment and appliance delivery and patient instructions attributes.
CONCLUSION: The clinical audit demonstrated poor compliance with the criteria for orthodontic chart documentation. The audit should be repeated after the provision of learning opportunities and self-critical analysis.
METHODS: Clinical audit learning was introduced in Year 3 of a 5-year curriculum for dental undergraduates. During classroom activities, students were briefed on clinical audit, selected their audit topics in groups of 5 or 6 students, and prepared and presented their audit protocols. One chosen topic was RCT, in which 3 different cohorts of Year 3 students conducted retrospective audits of patients' records in 2012, 2014 and 2015 for their compliance with recommended record keeping criteria and their performance in RCT. Students were trained by and calibrated against an endodontist (κ ≥ 0.8). After each audit, the findings were reported in class, and recommendations were made for improvement in performance of RCT and record keeping. Students' compliance with published guidelines was presented and their RCT performances in each year were compared using the chi-square test.
RESULTS: Overall compliance with of record keeping guidelines was 44.1% in 2012, 79.6% in 2014 and 94.6% in 2015 (P = .001). In the 2012 audit, acceptable extension, condensation and the absence of mishap were observed in 72.4, 75.7% and 91.5%; in the 2014 audit, 95.1%, 64.8% and 51.4%; and in 2015 audit, 96.4%, 82.1% and 92.8% of cases, respectively. In 2015, 76.8% of root canal fillings met all 3 technical quality criteria when compared to 48.6% in 2014 and 44.7% in 2012 (P = .001).
CONCLUSION: Clinical audit-feedback cycle is an effective educational tool for improving dental undergraduates' compliance with record keeping and performance in the technical quality of RCT.