Efeito do EDTA e EDTA-T aplicado de forma ativa na remoção de "smear layer" de superfícies radiculares

The purpose of this study was to compare the removal of root surface smear layer following active application of EDTA gel and EDTA-T (texapon) gel in different concentrations (5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 24%), using scanning electron microscopy. A total of 220 dentin blocks obtained from the root surfaces of extracted teeth were divided into 3 groups: Group I - (control) application of saline solution (n = 20); Group II - EDTA gel (pH 7.0) was applied in the following concentrations: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 24% (n = 100); Group III - EDTA-T gel (pH 7.0) applied in the same concentrations described above (n = 100). The photomicrographs were evaluated by one calibrated examiner using a smear layer removal index and following statistical analysis (Kruskal-Wallis test). The results demonstrated that the specimens treated with EDTA and EDTA-T gel presented a better smear layer removal than the control group (p ; 0.05). Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that all treatment modalities effectively removed the smear layer from the root surface. The addition of texapon into the EDTA gel formulation did not increase its effectiveness.O objetivo do presente estudo foi comparar, através de microscopia eletrônica de varredura, o efeito da aplicação de gel de EDTA e de EDTA-T (texapon) em diferentes concentrações (5%, 10%, 15%, 20% e 24%) na remoção de "smear layer" de superfícies radiculares previamente raspadas com instrumentos manuais. Duzentos e vinte espécimes de superfícies radiculares submetidas à raspagem foram divididos em 3 grupos. Grupo I - (controle) solução salina (n = 20); Grupo II - gel de EDTA (pH 7,0) nas concentrações de 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% e 24% (n = 100); Grupo III - gel de EDTA-T (pH 7,0) nas concentrações acima descritas (n = 100). As fotomicrografias obtidas foram avaliadas por um examinador calibrado através da aplicação de um índice de remoção de "smear layer", e os dados foram analisados através de análise estatística (teste de Kruskal-Wallis). Os resultados demonstraram que todos os tratamentos com EDTA e EDTA-T foram mais efetivos na remoção de "smear layer" quando comparados com o grupo controle (p ; 0,05). Dentro dos limites deste estudo, pode-se concluir que todas as modalidades de tratamento foram efetivas na remoção de "smear layer" e a adição de texapon ao gel de EDTA não aumentou a efetividade do tratamento

Remoção de smear layer de superfícies radiculares com aplicação tópica de EDTA com detergente. Análise em microscopia eletrônica de varredura

The aim of the present study was to compare root surface smear layer removal following topical application of EDTA and EDTA-T (Texapon). Extracted human teeth had their cementum removed and were mechanically scaled. A total of 220 root specimens were obtained and were randomly assigned to the following groups: I-saline solution (control), II-EDTA; III-EDTA-T. Groups II and III specimens were assigned to different EDTA gel concentrations: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 24%. Smear layer removal score was assessed for each specimen by scanning electron microscopy. The results demonstrated that EDTA and EDTA-T gel led to a higher root surface smear layer removal when compared to the control group. The 5% EDTA gel also showed a higher smear layer removal than the 15%, 20% and 24% EDTA gels (p;0.05). EDTA gels had statistically significantly lower smear layer scores than the EDTA-T gels for the 5% and 10% concentrations. The results suggested that topical application of EDTA or EDTA-T gel led to significant smear layer removal of the mechanically treated root surfaces. The addition of a detergent to the EDTA gel formula did not improve smear layer removal of the root surface.O objetivo do presente estudo foi comparar, através de microscopia eletrônica de varredura, a remoção de smear layer de superfícies radiculares após aplicação tópica de gel de EDTA com gel de EDTA-T (Texapon). Foram utilizados dentes humanos que foram submetidos a remoção de cemento radicular e raspagem. As amostras dos dentes foram divididas em 3 grupos: Grupo I- (controle) (n=20); Grupo II- gel de EDTA (pH 7,0) nas concentrações de 5%,10%,15%,20% e 24% (n=100); Grupo II -gel de EDTA-T (pH 7,0) nas concentrações acima descritas (n=100). As fotomicrografias foram avaliadas através de um índice e os dados foram estatisticamente analisados. Ambos os tratamentos com EDTA foram efetivos na remoção de smear layer quando comparados ao grupo controle. O gel de EDTA a 5% demonstrou maior capacidade na remoção de smear layer quando comparado com as concentrações de 15%, 20% e 24% (p;0,05). Os géis de EDTA foram mais efetivos que o EDTA-T nas concentrações de 5 e 10%. Os resultados sugerem que a aplicação tópica de EDTA ou EDTA-T é efetiva na remoção de smear layer, principamente em baixas concentrações e a adição do Texapon não promove vantagens neste tratamento

Liposomal anesthetic gel for pain control during periodontal therapy in adults: a placebo-controlled RCT

Abstract: Periodontal therapy usually requires local anesthesia. If effective, a non-invasive, liposomal anesthetic gel could increase the levels of acceptance of patients in relation to periodontal therapy. Objective: This study investigated the efficacy of liposomal anesthetic gel for pain control during periodontal therapy. Methodology: Forty volunteers with moderate to severe chronic periodontitis were recruited, of which at least three sextants required periodontal therapy. At least one of the selected teeth had one site with a probing depth of ≥4 mm. The volunteers received the following three gels: a placebo, lidocaine/prilocaine (Oraqix®), or a liposomal lidocaine/prilocaine, which were applied to different sextants. Pain frequency was registered during treatment and the volunteers received a digital counter to register any painful or uncomfortable experiences. At the end of each session, the volunteers indicated their pain intensity using rating scales (NRS-101 and VRS-4). The volunteers had their hemodynamic parameters measured by a non-invasive digital monitor. Results: Pain frequency/intensity did not show statistical difference between intervention groups. The tested gels did not interfere with the hemodynamic indices. Dental anxiety, suppuration and probing depth could influence pain during periodontal therapy. Conclusion:Our results suggest limited indications for the use of non-invasive anesthesia when used for scaling and root planing. Intra-pocket anesthetic gel could be a good option for anxious patients, or those who have a fear of needles

Use of etoricoxib and dexamethasone for postoperative pain prevention and control in mucogingival surgery - A randomized parallel double-blind clinical trial

Aim: To compare the use of etoricoxib and dexamethasone for postoperative pain prevention and control after mucogingival surgery. Methods: Fifty-eight patients with indication for mucogingival surgery took part in this randomized parallel double-blind clinical trial. They were divided into three groups (G): G1 – placebo 1 h before surgery; G2 – 8 mg dexamethasone 1 h before surgery; G3 – 90 mg etoricoxib 1 h before surgery. Pain intensity was assessed in donor and recipient sites separately using the 101-point numerical rating scale NRS – 101, every hour for the first 8 h after surgery and three times a day on the following 3 days. Results: there was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative pain intensity in the donor site between G1 and G3 after 1 h, 2 h, 3 h, 7 h, 8 h and on the second day – in the evening after 32 h; between G1 and G2 after 2 h and 3 h, and between G2 and G3 only after the first hour. Pain intensity in the recipient site was statistically significant between G1 and G3 after 1 and 2 h (p<0.05). In addition, there was a lower ingestion of rescue medication in G2 and in G3 than in G1 (p=0.002). Conclusions: the use of a pre-emptive single dose of etoricoxib or dexamethasone may be considered an effective protocol for postoperative pain prevention and control after mucogingival surgery

The Use of Etoricoxib and Celecoxib for Pain Prevention After Periodontal Surgery: A Double-Masked, Parallel-Group, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Postoperative pain is an adverse effect of periodontal surgeries and may therefore be prevented or minimized. This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy of two selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, celecoxib and etoricoxib, on pain prevention after periodontal surgery.Methods: For this double-masked, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, and randomized clinical trial, 56 open-flap debridement surgeries were performed. The groups received three different protocols 1 hour before surgery: 1) 200 mg celecoxib (and another 200 mg 12 hours after the first dose); 2) 120 mg etoricoxib; or 3) placebo. Pain intensity and discomfort were assessed up to 2 days after surgery using the visual analog scale and the four-point verbal rating scale, respectively. Patients were instructed to take 750 mg acetaminophen as a rescue medication if necessary.Results: Pain intensity levels in the etoricoxib group were lower than in the placebo group at the 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, and 7-hour periods after surgery (Kruskal-Wallis test; P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between celecoxib and etoricoxib. Discomfort in the celecoxib group was significantly lower than in the placebo group only at the 3-hour period (P = 0.03). Rescue medication intake was significantly less frequent in the etoricoxib group than in the placebo and celecoxib groups (analysis of variance; P = 0.009).Conclusion: It was concluded that a single etoricoxib dose is not superior to two split doses of celecoxib when used for pain prevention after open-flap debridement surgery. J Periodontol 2011;82:1238-1244.Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES

Preemptive dexamethasone and etoricoxib for pain and discomfort prevention after periodontal surgery: A double-masked, crossover, controlled clinical trial

Background: Several anti-inflammatory drugs have been used to reduce pain and discomfort after periodontal surgeries. This study evaluates the efficacy of using etoricoxib and dexamethasone for pain prevention after open-flap debridement surgery. Methods: For this prospective, double-masked, crossover, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, open-flap debridement surgeries were performed on 15 patients (eight males and seven females, age range 20 to 56 years: mean age ± SD: 40 ± 9.7 years) who presented with chronic periodontitis after nonsurgical periodontal therapy at three quadrants. Each patient underwent three surgical procedures at intervals of 30 days and received one of the following premedication protocols 1-hour before surgery: group 1 = placebo, group 2 = 8 mg dexamethasone, and group 3 = 120 mg etoricoxib. Rescue medication (750 mg acetaminophen) was given to each patient who was instructed to take it when necessary. Pain intensity and discomfort were evaluated by a 101-point numeric rate scale and a four-point verbal rate scale, respectively, hourly for the first 8 hours after surgery and three times a day on the following 3 days. Results: The results demonstrate that groups 2 and 3 present reduced postoperative pain-intensity levels compared to group 1. There were statistically significant differences at the 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 hour-periods after surgery (Friedman test; P<0.05). Furthermore, rescue-medication intake was significantly lower for groups 2 and 3 than for group 1 (analysis of variance; P<0.02). Conclusion: The adoption of a preemptive medication protocol using etoricoxib or dexamethasone may be considered effective for pain and discomfort prevention after open-flap debridement surgeries

Efficacy of EDTA-T gel for smear layer removal at root surfaces

Objective: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the efficacy of EDTA gel preparation, associated with texapon detergent (EDTA-T), for removing the smear layer at human root surfaces. Method and materials: An experimental smear layer was produced by scaling using periodontal curettes, and the root surfaces were etched with the following concentrations of EDTA-T: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 24%, and negative control (saline solution) for 1, 2, or 3 minutes using both passive and active methods. The surfaces were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy, and photomicrographs were evaluated in relation to smear removal. Results: All EDTA-T groups were more effective than the control group (P < .0001). EDTA-T at 15% was more effective when applied by the passive method, although this difference was not observed for the active method. The active method was statistically better than the passive method (P < .0001). Conclusion: The etching of the root surface with EDTA-T gel by active application, independently of the other factors evaluated, was effective for smear layer removal

REPARACIÓN DE PERFORACIÓN DE FURCA UTILIZANDO AGREGADO DE TRIÓXIDO MINERAL (MTA)

Existe evidencia que demuestra la eficacia del agregado de trioxido mineral para reparar satisfactoriamente perforaciones de furca. Se presentan dos casos cl&iacute;nicos con lesi&oacute;n por perforaci&oacute;n accidental radicular durante el tratamiento endod&oacute;ntico. Estas lesiones fueron tratadas con MTA, siendo evaluados despu&eacute;s de 6 meses y 1 a&ntilde;o.&nbsp;Palabras clave:&nbsp;Agregado de Tri&oacute;xido Mineral, Perforaci&oacute;n de furca, Neoformaci&oacute;n &oacute;se