27^th Global Summit Expo on
Dental Science and Dental Practice

Background: Discomfort associated with the use of fixed orthodontic appliances may have a negative influence on patients oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). In general, OHRQoL assessments have the potential to provide information about treatment needs and outcomes and to improve the overall quality of care. Aim: to assess the impact of fixed orthodontic appliances on oral health-related quality of life. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study used a generic measure of OHRQoL the Arabic version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), which is a responsive measure to changes in oral health conditions. Data were collected using self-completed e-questionnaire which was distributed through social media. Results: A total of 149 subjects, 110 (73.8%) were females and 39 (26.2%) were males. Adolescents between 13-20 years were 63 (42.3%) and adults between 21-30 years were 86 (75.7%). A response rate of 100% was obtained. The Prevalence of oral health impacts according to OHP-14 was 22.5%. Oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP-14) consists of 14 items covering seven domains and a three-dimensional structure was used to test the existence of separate dimensions: functional limitation, pain discomfort, psychosocial impact. A significant difference was found between males and females in the first dimension (p=0.038)and the third dimension (p=0.022). Additionally, a significant difference was also found between the two age groups included in the study within the third dimension (p=0.025). Conclusion: Fixed orthodontic appliances has a minimal effect on OHRQoL. However, males have significantly altered functional limitations while females have a higher psychological impact. Also, adults have a significantly higher psychological impact than adolescents.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sealing ability of EndoSequence Root Repair Material, Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, and glass ionomer cement in repair of furcal perforation . Materials and Methods: Thirty extracted mandibular molars were selected . After access cavity preparation of each molar artificial perforation was made directly in the center of the pulp chamber floor . The teeth were randomly divided into three groups(N=10) according to the used root repair material . The perforation sites were repaired with MTA(G1) , EndoSequence(G2) and glass ionomer cement (G3). The access opening of all teeth was filled with composite. Then all teeth were immersed in 2% methylene blue for 24 hours and sectioned longitudinally to evaluate the maximum apical extent of dye leakage . Data were collected and analyzed statistically using ANOVA , Bonferroni , Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (P= 0.05). Results: The less mean value of dye penetration was observed with MTA follow by Endosequence and GIC. There was significant difference among root repair materials in relation to dye penetration .There was no significant difference between MTA and Endosequence , while both of MTA and Endosequence were significantly better than GIC in sealing the perforation site

Objective: This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated roots filled by different obturation systems. Material and methods: Ninety-six maxillary central incisors were used and decoronated, retaining 12 mm of the roots. On the basis of obturation systems, the roots were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=24): Group1 (COGR): control group (unprepared, unfilled), Group 2 (AVGR): ActiV GP points/ActiV GP sealer, Group 3 (GPGR): Gutta percha points / AH plus sealer, and Group4 (GAGR): Gutta percha points/ActiV GP sealer. The last three groups were obturated with the single cone technique. The roots were then stored in 100% relative humidity at 37 °C for 2 weeks. A vertical compressive force was exerted in a universal testing machine until fracture occurred. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Results: Mean (SD) failure loads for groups ranged from 920.51 ± 210.37 to 1113.44 ± 489.42 N. The fracture resistance between the different study groups indicated no statistical difference (p>0.05).