Comparative evaluation of eighth-generation bonding agent modified with 7% arginine and 0.12% chitosan for antibacterial property and microtensile bond strength.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare eighth-generation bonding agent (G-Premio BOND) modified with 7% arginine and 0.12% chitosan for antibacterial property and microtensile bond strength. Methods: To evaluate antibacterial property, the sterile 96-microtiter plate was taken. The sidewalls of nine wells were coated with 15 µl of adhesive from each group. Suspension of Streptococcus mutans bacteria was placed on each group of adhesive and antibacterial property was checked using Spectrophotometer. Thirty-three healthy extracted premolars were taken and adhesive from each group was applied on the exposed surface of dentin, and the specimens were tested using a universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Results: The least antibacterial efficacy was seen with unmodified eighth-generation bonding agent. This result was statistically significant when all study groups were compared. Microtensile bond strength was evaluated and the highest mean value (5.07) was seen with adhesive modified with 7% arginine, followed by adhesive modified with 0.12% chitosan (mean value: 4.14), and unmodified adhesive had the lowest mean bond strength value (4.07). Conclusions: The eighth-generation bonding agent modified with 7% arginine and 0.12% chitosan showed antibacterial efficacy against S. mutans. In addition to this, they also had higher tensile bond strength values as compared to unmodified adhesive.

Comparative Evaluation of Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine and 2% Lidocaine for Buccal Infiltration in Adult Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis of Maxillary First Molar: A Prospective Randomized Study.

Objective: The purpose of this prospective, randomized study was to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of 0.8 ml of 4% articaine and 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine administered through buccal infiltration (submucosal) only in adult male and female patients with irreversible pulpitis of maxillary 1st molar. Study Design: Two hundred patients with irreversible pulpitis of the maxillary first molar were divided into four study groups and received only buccal infiltration of either 0.8 ml of 4% articaine or 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine. Endodontic access was begun 7 min after the solution deposition. The success was defined as "no pain (0 mm)" or "weak/mild pain (>0 mm and ≤54 mm)" during access opening, and during the first file insertion till working length. Results: The compiled data of the number of failed cases were analyzed by two sample proportion test and of mean pain scores were analyzed by Student's unpaired t-test. P < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. No significant difference was found in the number of failed cases on using 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine (P > 0.05). Moreover, no significant difference was found in the number of failed cases between the genders in Group I (4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) and also in Group II (2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine). On comparing the mean pain scores of failed cases, it has been found that females experience more pain than males in Group I (not significant) and Group II (significant). Conclusion: The efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine has been found to be better than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, as only 0.8 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was effectively used as compared to 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Furthermore, females experience more pain as compared to males.