RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the antibacterial activities of OrthoMTA, RetroMTA, and ProRoot MTA against Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), and Prevotella intermedia (Pi). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each material was mixed on a glass slab using a spatula and was placed in columns containing the filter membrane of the modified membrane-enclosed immersion test (MEIT) system. The materials were sterilized after setting. The columns containing the sterilized test materials were placed in microcentrifuge tubes containing 500 µl of bacterial suspension. The systems were then incubated at 37°C under anaerobic conditions. After 72 hours, the bacterial growth and concentration (colony-forming unit (CFU)/ml) were assessed. The results were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post-hoc test in SPSS 22 software. In all analyses, the differences were considered significant at P<0.05. RESULTS: OrthoMTA had the highest antibacterial activity against Pi. The mean number of CFU/ml of Fn in the presence of ProRoot MTA and RetroMTA was significantly lower than that in positive controls. There were significant differences between the antibacterial activities of ProRoot MTA and OrthoMTA against Pg compared to positive controls. CONCLUSIONS: ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, and RetroMTA had similar antibacterial activities against the three evaluated anaerobic endodontic bacteria, except RetroMTA against Pg.
RESUMO
Introduction: Early detection of secondary proximal caries is critical for the preservation of tooth vitality. This study sought to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of DIAGNOdent and digital radiography for detection of secondary proximal caries adjacent to composite restorations. Methods: Sixty extracted molars including 30 teeth with carious lesions and 30 sound teeth were randomly selected. Class II cavities were prepared in all teeth and carious dentin was intentionally left in the gingival floor of cavities in 30 carious teeth. All cavities were restored with composite resin. The teeth were mounted in wax blocks (three teeth per block) and examined for caries using (DIAGNOdent kaVo Dental, Biberach, Germany). Digital radiographs using DIGORA photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates (Soredex Corporation, Helsinki, Finland) were obtained from all teeth using the parallel technique and were evaluated by 4 observers. Repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to calculate sensitivity and specificity values of the two diagnostic techniques. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for DIAGNOdent results and based on that, the cutoff points were determined. Results: The sensitivity and specificity values at the cut-off point of 10.5 were 0.622±0.038 and 0.822±0.077 for DIAGNOdent and 0.591±0.093 and 0.891±0.083 for digital radiography, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.7 for DIAGNOdent. Weighted kappa revealed moderate to almost perfect intra-observer agreement (0.46-0.99). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for DIAGNOdent was calculated to be 0.88. Conclusion: No statistically significant difference was noted in diagnostic accuracy of DIAGNOdent and digital radiography for detection of secondary proximal caries adjacent to composite restorations. Thus, DIAGNOdent may be used as an adjunct diagnostic tool for detection of secondary proximal caries beneath composite restorations.
