RESUMO
Introduction: The best treatment for the deeply carious tooth that cannot be restored is by the root canal therapy. This method has saved many patients from the loss of tooth. The common practice is either to deliver a full crown or close the access cavity with restoration. Hence in this study, the clinical longevity of the routine practice is tested for by analyzing the fracture toughness and the survival of the teeth that were restored endodontically with various materials. Materials and Methods: The hospital records were retrospectively evaluated from 2000 to 2010 for a decade. The demographics as well as the survival and the failure rates noted and compared for the various types of the restorations. The number of the walls of the teeth was also compared. Results: Thousand teeth were considered in the study. Less than 7% of teeth had coronal fractures. Of the 93% teeth that had survived, the most common restoration was Individual post (+ crown) followed by GIC, amalgams, and crowns. The mean survival of the crown+ bridge & gold restoration was highest. The mean survival was 10 ± 2 years for the restored teeth without any fractures at the coronal level. The failure was greatest for the GIC followed by amalgam, and the variations when compared with other restorations were significant. There was no significant difference for the number of the walls on the crown; however, the number of walls present was proportional to the survival rate. Conclusion: The teeth that were covered with a crown were comparatively fracture resistant and had a better survival rate compared to other restorations. GIC showed highest fracture, and the post core with crown had the best survival. Restoration of the lost crown architecture and the reinforcement are the best methods that can be followed for the survivals.
RESUMO
Background: Microorganisms in the oral cavity are still considered serious public health problems and position a costly burden on health-care services worldwide and elsewhere. Mouthrinses have been used in the oral cavity for decades with the intention of reducing the amount of microorganisms. Mouthrinses are used as additives to oral mechanical hygiene. Therapeutic mouthwashes are also prescribed as an alternative to mechanical plaque control for plaque accumulation prevention and for gingival and peri-implant health maintenance. Mechanical control alone has been questioned to eliminate recalcitrant biofilms in the oral cavity because it is known to be very time-consuming and, most significantly, inadequate for good oral hygiene. The aim of this study was to assess the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), and antimicrobial efficacy of herbal and chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse against Staphylococcus aureus. Materials and Methods: For MIC (macrobroth dilution method), MBC and antimicrobial effectiveness (zone of inhibition) of an herbal mouthrinse and 0.2% CHX mouthrinse were determined by the agar well diffusion method. Results: The zone of inhibition of S. aureus was 24 mm for the CHX mouthrinse. The arowash liquid mouthrinse shows that S. aureus does not produce a zone of inhibition. Conclusion: CHX mouthrinse (0.2%) has a better antimicrobial efficacy against the S. mutans when compared to herbal mouthrinse (arowash liquid).
