adam

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have a complex etiology determined by risk factors, which are in turn associated to a strong genetic component and to environmental factors. In the biological background for the development of CVD, low-grade chronic inflammation plays a role as a pathogenetic determinant of atherosclerosis. Dental infections have been associated with CVD. Periodontal disease is a chronic infection of the supporting tissues of the tooth that can lead to teeth loss. In recent years, a number of reports have demonstrated the possible relationship between periodontal disease and CVD. Apical periodontitis, on the other hand, is the late consequence of an endodontic infection, which is caused by the persistence of coronal caries and involves the root canal system of the tooth. Most of the time, it is a chronic infection. Some studies have found a correlation between a “composite status” of oral health (eg. caries, tooth loss, periodontal disease) and CVD, but only a few of them have addressed the association between apical periodontitis and CVD. This “state of the art” paper represents the first stage of an incoming study on the relationship between chronic endodontic infection and CVD.

INTRODUCTION:

This study set out to compare the efficacy of laser-activated and ultrasonically activated root canal disinfection with conventional irrigation, specifically its ability to remove bacterial film formed on root canal walls.

METHODS:

Seventy human premolars were shaped to an apical size #20, taper .07, sterilized, and contaminated in situ with oral bacteria for 1 week and incubated for 2 more weeks. Irrigation was done with 6% NaOCl (group 1), NaOCl ultrasonically activated with blunt inserts (group 2), or a pulsed erbium:YAG laser at nonablative settings (group 3) for a total of 60 seconds each. Positive and negative controls were also included. Aerobic bacterial sampling was performed, and the incidence of positive samples after 24 and 48 hours as well as bacterial counts (colony-forming units) were determined. Fixed and demineralized sections 1 mm and 4 mm off the apex were Brown-Brenn stained and assessed for remaining intracanal bacteria/biofilm and dentinal tubule penetration.

RESULTS:

All 3 canal disinfection protocols significantly reduced bacterial counts (P < .001). None of the 3 techniques predictably generated negative samples, but laser-activated disinfection was superior to the other 2 techniques in this aspect (P < .05). Histologic sections showed variable remaining bacterial presence in dentinal tubules at the 4-mm level and significantly less bacterial biofilm/necrotic tissue remaining at the 1-mm level after laser-activated irrigation (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS:

Under the conditions of this combined in situ/in vitro study, activated disinfection did not completely remove bacteria from the apical root canal third and infected dentinal tubules. However, the fact that laser activation generated more negative bacterial samples and left less apical bacteria/biofilm than ultrasonic activation warrants further investigation.

Cutaneous and systemic hypersensitivity reactions to implanted metals are challenging to evaluate and treat. Although they are uncommon, they do exist, and require appropriate and complete evaluation. This review summarizes the evidence regarding evaluation tools, especially patch and lymphocyte transformation tests, for hypersensitivity reactions to implanted metal devices. Patch test evaluation is the gold standard for metal hypersensitivity, although the results may be subjective. Regarding pre-implant testing, those patients with a reported history of metal dermatitis should be evaluated by patch testing. Those without a history of dermatitis should not be tested unless considerable concern exists. Regarding post-implant testing, a subset of patients with metal hypersensitivity may develop cutaneous or systemic reactions to implanted metals following implant. For symptomatic patients, a diagnostic algorithm to guide the selection of screening allergen series for patch testing is provided. At a minimum, an extended baseline screening series and metal screening is necessary. Static and dynamic orthopaedic implants, intravascular stent devices, implanted defibrillators and dental and gynaecological devices are considered. Basic management suggestions are provided. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive reference for use by those evaluating suspected cutaneous and systemic metal hypersensitivity reactions.

Dentists and patients are facing a perplexity between saving a compromised tooth through endodontic treatment and restoration or by extraction and replacement with an implant. The purpose of this paper was to compare the success rates of these two treatments. Success was measured as the longevity of the tooth or implant. Studies which met strict inclusion criteria to ensure best evidence were included. Searches were performed in Ovid Medline, Pubmed, Scopus database, and the Cochrane Library. Evidence-based groups were formed following the assessment of inclusion/exclusion criteria. The overall success rates for primary endodontic, nonsurgical retreatment, and surgical treatment were (86.02%), (78.2%), and (63.4%), respectively, implants was 90.9%. In conclusion, choice between implant and endodontic therapy cannot be exclusively based on outcome as both treatments differ in the biological process, diagnostic modalities, failure patterns, and patients preferences. More research is required with improved study designs before long-term success rates can be compared.

Diagnosis, instrumentation, obturation and restoration are the main steps involved in the treatment of teeth with pulpal and periapical diseases. Elimination or significant reduction of irritants and prevention of recontamination of the root canal after treatment are the essential elements for successful outcomes. Although many advances have been made in different aspects of endodontics within the last few years to preserve natural dentition, the main objective of this field re-mains elimination of microorganisms from the root canal systems and prevention of recontamination after treatment. The common belief that inadequate obturation is the major cause of endodontic failures has been proven to be fallacious as obturation reflects the adequacy of cleaning and shaping. In other words, what you take out of a root canal may be more important than what you put in it.