MATERIALS AND METHODS: An estimated 120 human root dentin disks were prepared, sterilized, and inoculated with E. faecalis strain (ATCC 29212) to develop a 3-weeks-old biofilm. The dentin discs were exposed to group I-control group: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (n = 20); group II-1% ALX + 5.25% NaOCl (n = 40); group III-1% alexidine (ALX) (n = 40) (Sigma-Aldrich, Mumbai, India); group IV-negative control: saline (n = 20). After exposure, the dentin disks were stained with the fluorescent live/dead dye and evaluated with a confocal scanning electron microscope to calculate the proportion of dead cells. Statistical analysis was done using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: The maximum proportion of dead cells were seen in the groups treated with the combination of 1% ALX + 5.25% NaOCl (94.89%) and in the control group 5.25% NaOCl (93.14%). The proportion of dead cells presented in the 1% ALX group (51.79%) and negative control group saline (15.10%) were comparatively less.
CONCLUSION: The antibacterial efficiency of a combination of 1% ALX and 5.25% NaOCl was more effective when compared with 1% ALX alone.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Alexidine at 1% could be used as an alternative endodontic irrigant to chlorhexidine, as alexidine does not form any toxic precipitates with sodium hypochlorite. The disinfection regimen comprising a combination of 1% ALX and 5.25% NaOCl is effective in eliminating E. faecalis biofilms.
METHODS: 35 maxillary incisors were endodontically prepared. A dimensionally stable silicone material was injected into the root canal space and scanned with CBCT. The root canal volume was measured using Romexis 3.0.1 R software. Replicas were carefully removed from the teeth and scanned using an extraoral laser scanner. These images were exported to the Rhinoceros software for volume measurement. The volume of each replica was also assessed using the gravimetric method. To determine the accuracy, the volume obtained from both devices was compared with the gravimetric method. Statistical analysis was done using a paired t-test. The reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the mean volume of CBCT 27.04 ± 7.25 mm³ and the mean volume of the gravimetric method 27.87 ± 7.17 mm³ (P< 0.05). A statistically significant difference was seen with the laser scanner at 25.31 ± 6.89 mm³ and the gravimetric method at 27.87 ± 7.17 mm³ (P< 0.05). CBCT showed a good degree of agreement (ICC 0.899), while the laser scanner showed a moderate degree of agreement (ICC 0.644) with the gravimetric method. CBCT proved accurate and reliable in measuring minor volumes like the root canal space, ideally in the range of 20-25 mm³. The laser scanner presented acceptable reliability.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The laboratory data showed satisfactory outcomes, providing an evidence-based approach and potentially motivating clinicians to integrate cone-beam computed tomography for volume analysis into clinical practice. The accuracy and reliability of laser scanners for small-volume analysis have not previously been evaluated. Consequently, the findings from this study warrant further clinical investigations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty single-rooted permanent human teeth were chosen after considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The teeth were divided into two groups (n = 30). The test group was instrumented with TN files and the other with XPS according to manufacturer's instructions. CBCT images were taken before and after instrumentation to record the root canal distances from mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual borders of the root at 3, 5, and 7 mm distances from the root apex using a specific formula. Statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software program, version 20.0. The data were analyzed using the unpaired t test.
RESULTS: Both TN and XPS were safe for use in oval-shaped canals with moderate root curvature. However, the XPS showed higher buccolingual transportation as compared with TN at 3 mm from the apex and higher mesiodistal transportation at 3 and 5 mm levels from the apex as compared with TN.
CONCLUSION: Canal transportation has been detected in both systems; however, the values obtained were within the safe range (<0.3 mm). Overall, no significant difference was observed between TN and XPS (p > 0.05) in their canal transportation tendencies and centering ability.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The study assesses the canal centering and transportation tendencies of the recently launched TN rotary system in extracted teeth with a combination of morphologies. The findings of the study are significant clinically as minimum transportation of the canal, minimal dentin removal, efficient disinfection, and three-dimensional obturation of the root canal are considered important factors in deciding the prognosis of endodontic therapy.
OBJECTIVE: The systematic review and meta-analysis aims to gather evidence regarding the effectiveness of EALs for WL determination when compared to different imaging techniques along with postoperative pain associated with WL determination, the number of radiographs taken during the procedure, the time taken, and the adverse effects.
METHODS: For the review, clinical studies with cross-over and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in seven electronic databases, followed by cross-referencing of the selected studies and related research synthesis. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was carried out with Cochrane's RoB tool and a random-effects model was used. The meta-analysis was performed with the RevMan software 5.4.1.
RESULTS: Eleven eligible RCTs were incorporated into the review and eight RCTs into the meta-analysis, of which five had high RoB and the remaining six had unclear RoB. Following meta-analysis, no significant difference in postoperative pain was found among the EAL and radiograph groups (SMD 0.00, CI .29 to .28, 354 participants; P value = 0.98). Radiograph group showed better WL accuracy (SMD 0.55, CI .11 to .99, 254 participants; P value = 0.02), while the EAL group had 10% better WL adequacy (RR 1.10, CI 1.03-1.18, 573 participants; P value = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: We found very low-certainty evidence to support the efficacy of different types of EAL compared to radiography for the outcomes tested. We were unable to reach any conclusions about the superiority of any type of EAL. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardizing the outcomes and outcome measurement methods.