Egyptian dental journal (Egypt Dent J )

Description

  • Impact factor
    0.00
  • 5-year impact
    0.00
  • Cited half-life
    0.00
  • Immediacy index
    0.00
  • Eigenfactor
    0.00
  • Article influence
    0.00
  • ISSN
    0070-9484

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study was carried out to investigate the effect of Er:Yag laser ablation on the bonding efficacy of ceramic blocks to enamel and dentin using contemporary resin cements. Flattened enamel and dentin surfaces of 28 anterior and posterior teeth were exposed. Half of the exposed teeth surfaces were prepared using high speed cylindrical carbide bur while the second half of the teeth surfaces were prepared with an Er:YAG laser (Fidelis, Fotona Medical Lasers). Standardized 3 mm thickness ceramic slabs were luted to prepared enamel and dentin surfaces using either (RelyX ARC, 3M/ESPE) after pretreatment with two steps etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond Plus, 3M ESPE) or the direct use of self-adhesive cement (RelyX Unicem Maxicap, 3M/ESPE). After 24 hours storage, teeth were sectioned and micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) was detected. It was found that the mean μTBS values of bur-prepared enamel restored with etch-and-rinse and self-adhesive systems were (23.6±4.1MPa) and (15.1±3.1 MPa), respectively. In addition, the mean μTBS values of laser-ablated enamel restored with etch-and-rinse and self-adhesive systems were (24.1MPa±2) and (19.1±4.8 MPa), respectively. On the other hand, the mean μTBS values using etch-and-rinse system were (20.6±3.3 MPa) and (17.5±3.4 MPa) to bur-prepared and laser-ablated dentin, respectively. Moreover, when the self adhesive system was used, the recorded mean μTBS values were (9.1±2.9 MPa) and (15.9±1.8 MPa) with bur-prepared and laser-ablated dentin, respectively.
    Egyptian dental journal 07/2013; 59(3):3165-3175.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: the purpose of the present study was to assess the contemporary practice of cross infection control of dental impressions in governmental & private dental labs & prosthodontic clinics of MoH, Al-Qassim, KSA, assessing how dentists are communicating with lab personnel about impression disinfection, and lastly detecting awareness about infection control practices in dental laboratories. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study including pre-prepared self-administered questionnaires. The study sample included 46 dental technicians & 48 dentists in two cities: Buraidah & Unaizah. The technicians and the prosthodontists were exposed to questionnaires consisting of 26 and 14 questions, respectively. The questions were administered to each of the dental technicians and dentists in the dental laboratory& clinics. A thorough description of the study circumstances was made alongside with stress on the privacy of the questionnaire. The returned questionnaires were revised for comprehensiveness. Results: About 63.00% of the technicians recognized that the impressions have been disinfected and 58.33% of the dentists informed their technicians that the impressions have already been disinfected. More than 67.00% of the technicians reported that there is an agreed protocol between the lab and the dental office, and 44.44% of the prosthodontists stated that they notify the technicians through notes on the impression bags. Liquid disinfectant immersion constituted the highest product or technique used by prosthodontists (39.13%). More than 84.00% and 78.26% of the technicians registered that they disinfect alginate as well as rubber base impressions, respectively, by themselves, and ten minutes was the duration mostly accepted for both impression materials. About 63.00% of the studied group reported that all technicians in the lab were vaccinated for hepatitis B virus (HBV). The majority of dental technicians revealed that they apply infection control measures in the dental lab concerning disinfection of laboratory work surfaces and the hand instruments. For the precautions they take when receiving the impressions or any work delivered from the clinic only 8.70% of the technicians reported that they apply all precautions.Fifty percent of the prosthodontists stated that they are not sure that the technicians disinfect the impressions before pouring. About 65.00% of the technicians stated that they feel that dental laboratories are adequately instructed for disinfection techniques of different impression materials and on the contrary, 66.67% of the prosthodontists didn’t feel that.Conclusion:There is moderate communication between dental laboratory technicians and prosthodontists. Liquid disinfectant immersion comprised the highest product or technique used by the prosthodontists for proper disinfection of impressions and the procedure performed for ten minutes. The majority of dental technicians were vaccinated for HBV. Lack of communication between the prosthodontists and their dental technicians was noticeable as the dentists are not sure whether the technicians disinfect the preliminary/working impressions before pouring. A significant nonconformity of view between the dental technicians and prosthodontics with regard to adequate instructions for the dental laboratories for different impression materials was reported.
    Egyptian dental journal 01/2013; 59(5):2703.
  • Egyptian dental journal 07/2012; 58(5):2981.
  • Egyptian dental journal 01/2012; 58 (2.4).

Related Journals