Root canal treatment on a patient with zinc oxide allergy: a case report

Zinc oxide-ozonated olive oil as a new root canal filling material in primary molars: a clinical randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The complex root canal anatomy of primary teeth keeps it very tricky to attain appropriate cleansing by biomechanical instrumentation, so obtaining an obturating material with excellent antimicrobial properties is a challenge in current clinical pulpectomy practice. So, this study aimed to assess the clinical and radiographic performance of zinc oxide-ozonated olive oil as a primary root canal filling material.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety non-vital primary molars in children ranging from 4 to 8 years were allocated into three groups in which root canals were filled with zinc oxide-ozonated olive oil, zinc oxide-olive oil, and zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE) according to each group after pulpectomy procedure. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were done at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up periods. Statistical analysis was performed for the collected data.

RESULTS

All study groups showed a significant improvement regarding clinical signs and symptoms during follow-up periods. Ozonated-olive oil group revealed a significant increase in furcation radiodensity and a decrease in periodontal ligament space at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up intervals compared to other groups.

CONCLUSION

Zinc oxide-ozonated olive oil and zinc oxide-olive oil paste had shown good clinical and radiographic success for primary teeth pulpectomy.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The intricate torturous primary root canal anatomy, in addition to the child's negative behavior, interferes with the complete debridement, so the long-lasting antibacterial effect of the primary root canal filling material aids in the pulpectomy success.

DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN ENDODONTICS - A NARRATIVE REVIEW

Recently in oral health care settings, the focus of assessing treatment outcomes has shifted from the perspective of the clinician towards that of the patient. Endodontology is a specialty of dentistry concerned with the prevention and treatment of pulp and periapical diseases. Research in endodontology and its associated treatment outcomes have focused mainly on clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) and not dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs). As a result, there is a need to emphasize the importance and relevance of dPROs to researchers and clinicians. The aim of this review is to present an overview of dPROs and dPROMs within endodontics in an attempt to create a better understanding of the patient experience, highlight the need to place the patient at the center of treatment, enhance patient care and encourage more research into dPROs. The key dPROs following endodontic treatment include pain, tenderness, tooth function, need for further intervention, adverse effects (exacerbation of symptoms, tooth discoloration) and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life. dPROs are important following endodontic treatment because they assist clinicians and patients when they discuss and select the most appropriate management options, help clinicians make decisions on pre-operative assessment, prevention and treatment, and improve the methodology and design of future clinical studies. Clinicians and researchers in endodontology should prioritize patient welfare and undertake routine analyses of dPROs using appropriate and robust measures. Due to the lack of agreement over the reporting and definition of endodontic treatment outcomes, a comprehensive project to define a ``Core Outcome Set for Endodontic Treatment Methods (COSET)'' is currently ongoing. In the future, a new and exclusive assessment tool should be developed to reflect the viewpoints of patients receiving endodontic treatment more accurately.

Recent update on potential cytotoxicity, biocompatibility and preventive measures of biomaterials used in dentistry

Dental treatment is provided for a wide variety of oral health problems like dental caries, periodontal diseases, periapical infections, replacement of missing teeth and orthodontic problems. Various biomaterials, like composite resins, amalgam, glass ionomer cement, acrylic resins, metal alloys, impression materials, bone grafts, membranes, local anaesthetics, etc., are used for dental applications. The physical and chemical characteristics of these materials influence the outcome of dental treatment. It also impacts on the biological, allergic and toxic potential of biomaterials. With innovations in science and their positive results, there is also a need for awareness about the biological risks of these biomaterials. The aim of dental treatment is to have effective, yet safe, and long-lasting results for the benefit of patients. For this, it is important to have a thorough understanding of biomaterials and their effects on local and systemic health. Materials used in dentistry undergo a series of analyses before their oral applications. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first and original review that discusses the reasons for and studies on the toxicity of commonly used biomaterials for applications in dentistry. It will help clinicians to formulate a methodical approach for the selection of dental biomaterials, thus providing an awareness for forecasting their risk of toxic reactions.

Symptoms of titanium and nickel allergic sensitization in orthodontic treatment

Aim

The study aimed to evaluate to which extent self-reported symptomatology, age, and sex are predictors of titanium and nickel allergic sensitization in patients in treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances.

Methods

The study analyzed 228 subjects aged 11–45 years (median 18, interquartile range 16–22); 68% of them were females, and 52% were adolescents. The allergic sensitization testing included epicutaneous patch test to titanium, titanium dioxide, titanium oxalate, titanium nitride, and nickel sulfate. The questionnaire on symptoms potentially linked to titanium and nickel sensitization was used.

Results

Prevalence of the allergic sensitization to titanium in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment was 4% (2% only to titanium without nickel) while to nickel 14% (12% nickel without titanium). Hypersensitivity to both metals at the same time was present in 2% of subjects. Sensitization to nickel was more common in females than in males (17 vs. 8%) and much more common in adults than in adolescents with small effect size (20 vs. 8%; p = 0.013). Sensitization to titanium was more common in females than in males (6 vs. 1%) with no difference in age. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that adult age increases the odds for being sensitized to nickel for 2.4 × (95% CI 1.1–5.6; p = 0.044) while watery eyes for 3.7 × (95% CI 1.2–11.1; p = 0.022). None of the symptoms were significant predictors of titanium sensitization.

Conclusion

Allergic sensitization to titanium and nickel are not very frequent in orthodontic patients, and self-reported symptomatology is a weak predictor of those sensitizations.

A review on potential toxicity of dental material and screening their biocompatibility

OBJECTIVES

A wide range of compounds are utilized in dentistry such as dental composites, resins, and implants. The successful clinical use of dental materials relies on theirm physiochemical properties as well as biological and toxicological reliability. Different local and systemic toxicities of dental materials have been reported. Placement of these materials in oral cavity for a long time period might yield unwanted reactions. An extensive variety of materials is used in dentistry including filling materials, restorative materials, intracanal medicines, prosthetic materials, different types of implants, liners, and irrigants. The increasing rate in development of the novel materials with applications in the dental field has led to an increased consciousness of the biological risks and tempting restrictions of these materials. The biocompatibility of a biomaterial used for the replacement or filling of biological tissue such as teeth always had a high concern within the health care disciplines for patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Any material used in humans should be tested before clinical application. There are many tests evaluating biocompatibility of these materials at the point of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical investigations.

RESULTS

The current review discusses the potential toxicity of dental material and screening of their biocompatibility.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

It is essential to use healthy and safe materials medical approaches. In dentistry, application of different materials in long-term oral usage demands low or nontoxic agents gains importance for both patients and the staff. Furthermore, screening tests should evaluate any potential toxicity before clinical application.

In vitro antimicrobial effect of different root canal sealers against oral pathogens

Background and Purpose

Root canal therapy is the primary method for the treatment of an infected pulp in modern dentistry. The main aim of endodontic treatment is the elimination of bacteria and their products from infected root canals. In this study, we attempted to investigate the antimicrobial activity of three root canal sealers against oral pathogens.

Materials and Methods

The antimicrobial effectiveness of three endodontic sealers with different chemical compositions, namely resin (AH 26), zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE), and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), against Candida albicans, Streptococcus sanguis, Streptococcus salivarius, Streptococcus mutans, and Lactobacillus casei was assayed by agar well diffusion method (AWDM). The tested sealers were prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions and poured in the prepared wells of agar plates; diluted inocula (10⁵ and 10⁶ CFU/ml) of the tested microorganism strains were also used. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of the selected canal sealers ranged between 3.12 and 50 mg.ml^-1 against the employed microorganism strains. All the plates were incubated at 37°C under anaerobic condition for bacteria and at 30°C for C. albicans. After three days, the inhibition zones were measured.

Results

In this investigation, AH 26 exhibited strong activity against C. albicans with the minimum inhibitory concentration of 12.5 mg.ml^-1, but ZOE and MTA did not act against C. albicans. ZOE sealer had the highest antimicrobial activity against the tested bacteria, while MTA showed the lowest antimicrobial activity.

Conclusion

The ascending sequence of microbial growth inhibition zones was as follows AH 26 > ZOE > MTA.

In vitro antimicrobial effect of different root canal sealers against oral pathogens

Background and Purpose:

Root canal therapy is the primary method for the treatment of an infected pulp in modern dentistry. The main aim of endodontic treatment is the elimination of bacteria and their products from infected root canals. In this study, we attempted to investigate the antimicrobial activity of three root canal sealers against oral pathogens.

Materials and Methods:

The antimicrobial effectiveness of three endodontic sealers with different chemical compositions, namely resin (AH 26), zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE), and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), against Candida albicans, Streptococcus sanguis, Streptococcus salivarius, Streptococcus mutans, and Lactobacillus casei was assayed by agar well diffusion method (AWDM). The tested sealers were prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions and poured in the prepared wells of agar plates; diluted inocula (10⁵ and 10⁶ CFU/ml) of the tested microorganism strains were also used. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of the selected canal sealers ranged between 3.12 and 50 mg.ml^-1 against the employed microorganism strains. All the plates were incubated at 37°C under anaerobic condition for bacteria and at 30°C for C. albicans. After three days, the inhibition zones were measured.

Results:

In this investigation, AH 26 exhibited strong activity against C. albicans with the minimum inhibitory concentration of 12.5 mg.ml^-1, but ZOE and MTA did not act against C. albicans. ZOE sealer had the highest antimicrobial activity against the tested bacteria, while MTA showed the lowest antimicrobial activity.

Conclusion:

The ascending sequence of microbial growth inhibition zones was as follows AH 26 > ZOE > MTA.

Allergic Reactions to Dental Materials-A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Utility of various dental materials ranging from diagnosis to rehabilitation for the management of oral diseases are not devoid of posing a potential risk of inducing allergic reactions to the patient, technician and dentist. This review aims to develop a systematic approach for the selection and monitoring of dental materials available in the market thereby giving an insight to predict their risk of inducing allergic reactions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our data included 71 relevant articles which included 60 case reports, 8 prospective studies and 3 retrospective studies. The source of these articles was Pub Med search done with the following terms: allergies to impression materials, sodium hypochlorite, Ledermix paste, zinc oxide eugenol, formaldehyde, Latex gloves, Methyl methacrylate, fissure sealant, composites, mercury, Nickel-chromium, Titanium, polishing paste and local anaesthesia. All the relevant articles and their references were analysed. The clinical manifestations of allergy to different dental materials based on different case reports were reviewed.

RESULTS

After reviewing the literature, we found that the dental material reported to cause most adverse reactions in patients is amalgam and the incidence of oral lichenoid reactions adjacent to amalgam restorations occur more often than other dental materials.

CONCLUSION

The most common allergic reactions in dental staff are allergies to latex, acrylates and formaldehyde. While polymethylmethacrylates and latex trigger delayed hypersensitivity reactions, sodium metabisulphite and nickel cause immediate reactions. Over the last few years, due to the rise in number of patients with allergies from different materials, the practicing dentists should have knowledge about documented allergies to known materials and thus avoid such allergic manifestations in the dental clinic.

An unexpected positive hypersensitive reaction to eugenol

Eugenol is an active, principal aromatic liquid responsible for several pharmacological activities. It is widely used in dental practice to relieve pain arising from various sources, such as pulpitis and dentinal hypersensitivity. As a primary irritant and sensitiser, it is known to cause contact urticaria as well as chronic urticaria. However, eugenol causes allergic contact dermatitis, possibly because it can react directly with proteins to form conjugate and reactive haptens. It is found that eugenol in various dental preparations-especially in the case of some zinc oxide-contains preparations such as periodontal dressings and root canal cements. This can cause hypersensitivity when it comes in contact with gingiva or teeth. This article presents a case of immediate allergic contact urticaria to eugenol during dental treatment.