ABSTRACT
Objective In light of several advancements and considerations in endodontic dentistry, there still remains a need to comprehensively evaluate the outcome disparities between repairing and replacing broken dental restorations. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of repairing dental restorations versus replacing them, focusing on how each method affects the structural strength and longevity of the restorations. Methods The study included 60 freshly removed human maxillary premolars. Initial processing involved rigorous washing, descaling, and polishing of the teeth. To ensure preservation, the specimens were stored in sterile, distilled water. To occlude the root canals, a self-hardening composite resin was used, and the roots were coated with two coats of clear nail polish to prevent moisture penetration. A 245 carbide bur attached to a high-speed dental handpiece with air and water spray cooling produced standardized Class II cavities on the occluso-proximal surfaces. Each cavity had a buccolingual breadth of 2 mm, an occluso-cervical length of 4 mm, and a gingival boundary that was 1 mm coronal to the cement-enamel junction. Following this preparation, the teeth were randomly separated into three groups (Group A, Group B, and Group C), each containing 20 teeth. Results Our analysis showed that teeth with entirely replaced restorations had a higher average fracture resistance than those with repaired restorations. However, the difference in fracture resistance between the repair and replacement groups for each type of material was not statistically significant. Conclusion Based on the findings, repairing a dental restoration can be a conservative and less invasive alternative to a full replacement without a significant compromise in the restoration's ability to withstand fracture. Therefore, dental professionals might consider full restoration as a viable option, taking into account the need to preserve dental tissue as well as the restoration's durability and structural integrity.
ABSTRACT
Background The disinfection of dental impression materials is a cornerstone of infection control in dental practice. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two disinfectants, sodium hypochlorite and iodophor, on alginate and silicone impression materials, which are prone to microbial contamination. Methods The study was structured into two main groups based on the impression material: Group I (alginate) and Group II (addition silicone), each further subdivided into two subgroups for disinfection with sodium hypochlorite and iodophor. For each subgroup, initial microbial swabs were taken before any treatment, followed by a second swab after rinsing and a final swab after disinfection. The mean colony-forming unit (CFU) counts, standard deviations, and standard errors of the mean were calculated for each stage of treatment. Results Prior to disinfection, Group I had a mean CFU count of 2,529.40, while Group II had a lower mean CFU of 1,417.40. After rinsing, there was a significant decrease in CFUs in both groups, with Group I at 1,337.10 and Group II at 415.10. Post-disinfection, Group I showed a mean CFU count of 73.00 for sodium hypochlorite and 0.00 for iodophor. Similarly, Group II achieved a CFU reduction of 99.00 with sodium hypochlorite and 0.00 with iodophor, demonstrating a marked reduction in microbial presence. Conclusion Iodophor was exceptionally effective in disinfecting both alginate and silicone impression materials, eliminating all detectable CFUs. Sodium hypochlorite also significantly reduced microbial counts but was not as effective as iodophor. Rinsing prior to disinfection was instrumental in reducing the microbial load, underscoring its importance in the disinfection protocol.
