Microbial reduction by two chemical-mechanical protocols in primary teeth with pulp necrosis and periradicular lesion - An in vivo study

6Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of chemical-mechanical procedures of two endodontic protocols for septic content reduction of root canals from primary teeth with pulp necrosis and periradicular lesion. Twenty-four primary root canals with pulp necrosis and periradicular lesion were divided into two treatment groups (n=12): multiple-visit and single-visit protocols. Samples were collected using sterile paper points before and after endodontic cleaning followed by microbiological identification through checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. Statistical analysis was performed using Proportion Test for score=0 comparing the findings before and after treatment for each group (Wilcoxon’s test) as well as the differences in scores between protocols (Mann-Whitney’s test) (p<0.05). Data were expressed as prevalence (presence or absence) and estimate of the average count (x105 cells) of each species. Differences in proportions of score=0 prior to treatment were non-significant (p=0.415), demonstrating equivalence between groups. A significant increase in score=0 was detected after treatment for both groups (p<0.0001). Single-visit protocol achieved a significantly greater reduction in mean scoring following endodontic treatment (p=0.024). Both protocols were capable of significantly reducing septic content in root canals of primary teeth with periradicular lesion. Moreover, singlevisit protocol showed greater efficacy in reducing endodontic infection.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Triches, T. C., de Figueiredo, L. C., Feres, M., de Freitas, S. F. T., Zimmermann, G. S., & Cordeiro, M. M. R. (2014). Microbial reduction by two chemical-mechanical protocols in primary teeth with pulp necrosis and periradicular lesion - An in vivo study. Brazilian Dental Journal, 25(4), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201302416

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free