Surface Microhardness Of Microhybrid And Nanocomposite After Storage In Mouth Washes.

BACKGROUND: Dental composites are aesthetic direct restorative material. However, the effect of mouthwashes on the durability of the material is controversial. This study evaluated and compared the influence of mouthwash composition on the surface hardness of nanofilled (Z350XT) and microhybrid (P60) resin composites. METHODS: Comparative in-vitro study was conducted over 6 months at Multan Medical & Dental College. Sixty-four disc-shape specimens of each {nanofilled (Z350XT) and microhybrid (P60)} resin composite were prepared and stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. The baseline microhardness reading (To) was recorded by Vickers micro-hardness tester. Samples were then randomly divided into four groups (n=16) and stored in Listerine Cool Mint, Colgate Plax, Clinica and distilled water (control). The hardness test was repeated after 12 hours and 24 hours of storage. RESULTS: Nanocomposite (Z350XT) had statistically (p<0.01) higher surface hardness. A significant reduction (p≤0.05) in microhardness was observed after immersion of samples in mouthwashes. The reduction in surface hardness was dependent on the immersion time and composition of mouthwashes. Listerine Cool Mint (alcohol-based mouthwash) had greatest degradation effect. CONCLUSIONS: Mouth rinses negatively impacted the surface microhardness of the tested resin-based materials. Alcohol-based mouthwashes had greater potential for reducing microhardness. Microhybrid composite appears to be a more suitable material for restoring teeth in patients accustomed to using regular mouthwashes.

Comparative effectiveness of chewing stick and toothbrush: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing rate of oral diseases, the global necessity of effective and economical products for its prevention and treatment has intensified. AIM: THIS STUDY WAS TO COMPARE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TWO ORAL HYGIENE AIDS: Chewing stick and manual toothbrush, for plaque removal and gingival health after one month of a randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental students (age 18-22 years) of a public sector dental hospital were recruited. Sample size was determined using the American Dental Association guidelines. Participants were randomized into two interventional groups and provided with either chewing sticks or toothbrushes. Pre- and post-intervention examinations were executed by two blind and calibrated examiners using plaque and gingival dental indices. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, paired t-test, and two sample independent t-tests. RESULTS: Fifty subjects were recruited with mean age 20 ± 0.66 years (80% were females and 20% were males). Except for the mean plaque scores of toothbrush users (which increased at post-intervention examination), all other scores showed reduction. In contrast to the final mean gingival scores, a significant difference (P = < 0.0001) in the final mean plaque score was observed for the two respective interventional groups. CONCLUSION: Chewing stick has revealed parallel and at times greater mechanical and chemical cleansing of oral tissues as compared to a toothbrush.

Needle-stick injury: a rising bio-hazard.

BACKGROUND: Needle stick injury has been identified as the foremost health allied concern and the specialty of dentistry is not an exception. Its incidence can be reduced when a dental practitioner is completely proverbial to the standard cross-infection control measures. This study was intended to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices among the dental practitioners regarding Needle Stick Injuries and associated risk factors. METHODS: This survey was carried out in the Oral Surgery Department, Dr. Ishrat-ul-Ebad Khan Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Karachi. Dental practitioners of different job categories were conveniently approached by the BDS students. They all were provided with a structured and validated, self-administered questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square test was applied with 5% level of significance. RESULTS: All 100 (55 females and 45 males) practitioners agreed to participate in the study. Prevalence of Needle Stick Injury observed was 30% with no significant relationship with the demographic characteristics. Seventy-four percent of the participants were aware of the universal guidelines. Majority (88%) of the dental personnel believed that recapping of needles should be performed soon after use and 53% knew about needle-less safety devices. These injuries were experienced by 30% of the respondents, of which just 28% were reported. CONCLUSION: Dental practitioners were at high risk of getting Needle Stick Injuries in dental offices. Most of them had knowledge about it but there was lack of practice of universal precautions.