Aims and Scope
Recent Articles
Reliability Assessment of the Clinical and Radiographic Diagnosis of Furcation Involvement
Fathima Fazrina Farook, Bothinah Alnasyan, Duaa Almohammadi, Amjad Alshahrani, Meral Alyami, Rasha Alharbi, Hussah Alodwene, Wael AboelmaatyAim:
The aim of the present study was to compare and assess the relationship and agreement between the clinical and radiographic detection of Furcation Involvement (FI) in the mandibular molars of patients with periodontitis.
Materials and Methods:
The sample size included 360 molars from 283 participants with a total of 180 molars involved with furcation clinically and 180 without. The inclusion criteria involved records of patients in the age range 35-76 years, diagnosed with generalized periodontitis, Stage II to IV, Grade B and C, and existing periapical radiographs/dental panoramic radiographs. The periodontal charts (Hamp’s classification) and radiographs were used to evaluate furcation on the buccal and lingual sites of first and second mandibular molars.
Results:
Of the 360 molars, half of the molars (50%, n=180) had clinical FI. Of the clinical FI group, the majority (73%, n=131) demonstrated FI in the radiological assessment with the periapical radiographs. In the not-clinically detected FI group, just less than half (49%, n=89) demonstrated FI in the radiological assessment. The sensitivity of the radiographic detection of FI as a diagnostic marker was 50.6%, and the specificity was 72.8%. Of the 180 sites analyzed with FI clinically, a slight agreement was found between the clinical assessment and radiographic findings using the kappa analysis (k=0.18). The first mandibular molars showed a fair agreement (k= 0.21) compared to the second mandibular molars (k=0.15). In terms of the individual sites, the lingual sites (k=0.24) had a fair agreement compared to the buccal sites with a slight agreement. The Spearman Correlation analysis for the first mandibular molar showed a moderate positive correlation (r=0.4, p<0.001) compared to the second mandibular molar with no or negligible relationship (r=0.19, p<0.001). Comparatively, the DPT radiograph showed a weak correlation and poor agreement.
Conclusion:
Both diagnostic tools, intraoral radiography and clinical assessment should be used for diagnosing FI in mandibular molars.
August 24, 2020
Articles
- August 18, 2020
Modified Microtensile Bond Strength of Glass Ionomer to Composite Resin Using Universal Adhesive in Self-etch and Total-etch Modes
July 31, 2020
Fracture Resistance of Three Post Types in the Restoration of Anterior Primary Teeth
July 30, 2020Relationship between Helicobacter pylori and Periodontal Diseases: A Meta-Analysis Study and Systematic Review
July 21, 2020COVID-19 in Dental Practice: Transmission Risk, Infection Control Challenge, and Clinical Implications
July 21, 2020SARS-CoV-2: A Promising Path in Salivary Diagnosis
June 29, 2020Knowledge and Attitudes of Dental Interns and Dentists on Implants and Implant-Retained Restorations in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Editor's Choice
Evaluation of Five Different Desensitizers: A Comparative Dentin Permeability and SEM Investigation In Vitro
Nasibe Aycan Yilmaz, Ertan Ertas, Hasan Orucoğlu
Background/Objective:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and durability of five different dentin desensitizers (Gluma Desensitizer Powergel, Bifluorid 12, Gluma Self Etch Bond, D/Sense Crystal, Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin) on tubule occlusion and dentin permeability reduction in vitro.
Method:
The quantitative changes in permeability of 100 dentin discs were measured after desensitizer treatments and following post-treatments of 6% citric acid challenge for 1 min or immersion in artificial saliva for 24 hours under hydrostatic pressure generated by a computerised fluid filtration meter. Qualitative SEM analyses were also carried out.
Results:
Dentin permeability decreased after desensitizer application in all groups. Nevertheless, only the difference between ‘Gluma Self Etch Bond’ and ‘Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin’ groups was significantly different (p<0.05). Dentin permeability increased significantly after post-treatments (p<0.05). There was no statistically difference among the citric acid-subgroups (p>0.05). Of all the artificial saliva-subgroups, only the difference between ‘D/Sense Crystal’ and ‘Bifluorid 12’ was significantly different (p<0.05). In SEM analysis, morphological changes were detected on the dentin surface and within the tubules following desensitizer treatments and post-treatments.
Conclusion:
All the desensitizers significantly reduced dentin permeability by changing the morphology of the dentin surface and/or dentinal tubules. Following post-treatments, there was some reduction in the efficacy of the desensitizers which was represented by the reduction in permeability values. SEM analysis revealed some physical changes in the dentin structure which can partly give an explanation to the reduced efficacy of tested desensitizers.
January 31, 2017
Other Post
- January 31, 2017
Alveolar Bone Fracture: Pathognomonic Sign for Clinical Diagnosis
August 31, 2017
Molar Uprighting: A Considerable and Safe Decision to Avoid Prosthetic Treatment
October 24, 2017
Oral Leiomyoma in an Adult Male: A Case Report
June 30, 2017
Insight into Oral Biofilm: Primary, Secondary and Residual Caries and Phyto-Challenged Solutions
May 31, 2017
Maxillary Overdenture Retained with an Implant Support CAD-CAM Bar: A 4 Years Follow Up Case
March 31, 2017
A 5-week Non-Surgical Approach towards Denture Induced Hyperplasia
