METHODS: This study included 3 groups with 15 orthodontic patients in each. The control group included patients who had no probiotic treatment, the subjects in the kefir group consumed 2 × 100 ml of kefir (Atatürk Orman Ciftligi, Ankara, Turkey) per day, and the subjects in the toothpaste group brushed their teeth with toothpaste with probiotic content (GD toothpaste; Dental Asia Manufacturing, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia) twice a day. Samples were collected at 3 times: beginning of the study, 3 weeks later, and 6 weeks later. The salivary flow rate, buffer capacity, and Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus levels in the saliva were evaluated. Chair-side kits were used to determine the S mutans and Lactobacillus levels.
RESULTS: A statistically significant decrease was observed in the salivary S mutans and Lactobacillus levels in the kefir and toothpaste groups compared with the control group (P <0.05). A statistically significant increase was observed in the toothpaste group compared with the control and kefir groups in buffer capacity. Changes in the salivary flow rate were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: The regular use of probiotics during fixed orthodontic treatment reduces the S mutans and Lactobacillus levels in the saliva.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to look into the current perceptions and awareness about file separation during endodontic treatment among the dental house officers (DHOs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A novel validated questionnaire comprising of 15 close-ended questions was distributed anonymously via Google Forms through email to 1100 DHOs across Pakistan. The questionnaire consisted of two parts: the first component (Section I) collected demographic data and the second component (Section II) investigated the causes of EFS during root canal treatment. Following the completion of socioeconomic information, including age and gender, the DHOs were asked to answer a few questions about the various reasons for endodontic instrument fracture.
RESULTS: A total of 800 responses were recorded, with an effective rate of 72.8%. The majority of the DHOs (p value < 0.001) perceived that endodontic instrument fracture occurred in the posterior (61.5%) and apical third of the canal (50.5%) and in older permanent dentition (67.3%), possibly due to patient anxiety (62%). Better choice of instrument (61.15%), operators' experience (95.3%), knowledge (87.5%), and proper root canal cleaning (91.1%) are believed to be the vital steps in reducing endodontic file separation/fracture. Furthermore, majority of them (p value < 0.001) perceived that stainless steel was a superior alloy for filing instruments. Manual files tend to be more prone to fractures due to repeated use than rotary files.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that young DHOs had adequate knowledge and awareness regarding the potential predisposing factors and handling techniques for EFS. This study thereby provides an evaluating tool to access the insights of the current perceptions and awareness of DHOs concerning EFS.
BACKGROUND: SES may provide a valuable option to treat distal ULM, particularly when significant caliber gaps with side branches are observed.
METHODS: Patients from the multicenter SPARTA (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02784405) and FAILS2 registries were included. Propensity-score with matching was performed to account for the lack of randomization. Primary end-point was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization [TLR], unstable angina and definite stent thrombosis [ST]). Single components of MACE were the secondary end-points.
RESULTS: Overall, 151 patients treated with SES and 1270 with DES-II were included; no differences in MACE rate at 250 days were observed (9.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.54). After propensity score with matching, 129 patients treated with SES and 258 with DES-II, of which about a third of female gender, were compared. After a follow-up of 250 days, MACE rate did not differ between the two groups (9.9% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.66), as well as the rate of ULM TLR (1.6% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.36) and definite ST (0.8% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.78). These results were consistent also when controlling for the treatment with provisional vs. 2-stents strategies for the ULM bifurcation.
CONCLUSION: SES use for ULM treatment was associated with a similar MACE rate compared to DES-II at an intermediate-term follow-up. SES might represent a potential option in this setting.