PubMed · 6420121
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E Guetta, G Levy. 1983-12-01. [Irrigation in endodontics].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6420121/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Problems attributed to the accumulation of wax (cerumen) are one of the most common reasons for people to present to their general practitioners with ear trouble (Sharp 1990). Treatment for this condition often involves use of a wax softening agent (cerumenolytic) in order to disperse the cerumen and reduce the need for syringing, or to facilitate syringing should it prove necessary, but there is no consensus on the effectiveness of the wide variety of cerumenolytics in use. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of ear drops (cerumenolytics) for the removal of symptomatic ear wax. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, 2003), and MEDLINE and EMBASE up to March 2003. Reference lists of all trials were also manually searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: We identified all randomised controlled trials (with or without blinding) in which a cerumenolytic was evaluated in comparison with either no treatment, a placebo, or other cerumenolytics in participants with hard or impacted ear wax, and in which the proportion of participants with sufficient clearance of the external canal to make further mechanical clearance unnecessary (primary outcome measure) was stated or calculable. The full text articles of all the retrieved trials of possible relevance were reviewed by the two reviewers and the inclusion criteria applied independently. Any differences in opinion about which studies to include in the review were resolved by discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were graded for methodological quality using the Cochrane approach. Data extraction was performed in a standardised manner by one reviewer and rechecked by the other reviewer, and where necessary investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. Meta-analysis was neither possible nor considered appropriate because of the heterogeneity of the treatments, treatment amounts and durations, trial procedures, and scoring systems. A narrative overview of the results is therefore presented. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials satisfied the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were of poor quality. In all, 587 participants received one of nine different cerumenolytics. One trial compared active treatments with no treatment, two trials compared active treatments with water or a saline 'placebo', and all eight trials placed two or more active treatments in head-to-head comparisons. Seven trials included syringing as a secondary treatment where necessary.Overall, results were inconclusive. One trial found a significant difference between one of three active agents (Cerumol) in comparison to no treatment, but no statistically significant difference was found between these three agents (sodium bicarbonate ear drops; Cerumol; sterile water). In two trials no statistical difference was found between the effectiveness of either sodium bicarbonate ear drops, Cerumol, Cerumenex or Colace versus a sterile water or saline 'placebo'. Three trials (from the same source) found statistically significant differences in favour of the same active agent (Exterol) in comparison to glycerol and Cerumol. Three trials found no statistically significant difference between two or more cerumenolytics (Otocerol versus Cerumol; Audax versus Earex; sodium bicarbonate ear drops versus Cerumol). Two trials comparing the same two cerumenolytics (Cerumenex versus Colace) also failed to show any significant benefit of one over the other. No serious adverse effects were reported from any of the interventions. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Trials to date have been heterogeneous and of poor quality, making it difficult to offer any definitive recommendations on the effectiveness of cerumenolytics for the removal of symptomatic ear wax. Future trials should be of high methodological quality, have large sample sizes, and compare both oil-based and water-based solvents with placebo and/or no treatment.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Bleaching agents may affect the color of existing composite restorations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of 10% carbamide peroxide and 10% hydrogen peroxide on the color of light-polymerized hybrid, macrofilled, and polyacid-modified composites. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two light-polymerized hybrid composites (3M Valux and Spectrum TPH), 1 macrofilled condensable composite (Solitaire), and 2 polyacid-modified composites (Dyract AP and Compoglass) were used. The hybrid composites served as controls. The color of 8 specimens of each material was analyzed by use of a spectrophotometer before bleaching. The specimens were then divided randomly into 2 subgroups (n=4). One group was immersed in 10% carbamide peroxide solution and the other in 10% hydrogen peroxide, for 8 hours each for 14 consecutive days. After bleaching, color changes (Delta E) were determined for each material and compared by use of the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by the Mann-Whitney U test (P<.05). RESULTS: After bleaching with carbamide peroxide, the color changes (Delta E) for Dyract AP (2.18; SD = 1.41), Compoglass (1.14; SD = 0.26) and Solitaire (1.56; SD = 0.89) were higher than the color changes recorded for 3M Valux (0.63; SD = 3.60), and Spectrum TPH (0.66; SD = 1.24). The differences between materials bleached with carbamide peroxide were not statistically significant. After bleaching with hydrogen peroxide, the color changes for Dyract AP (9.39; SD = 0.53) and Compoglass (5.15; SD = 0.52) were higher than the changes recorded for Spectrum TPH (4.53; SD = 1.53) and 3M Valux (3.41; SD = 4.40), whereas the color change of Solitaire (3.69; SD = 0.57) was significantly higher than that of 3M Valux (P=.01). The color changes for all restorative materials tested were clinically detectable after the application of 10% hydrogen peroxide. However, clinically noticeable discoloration was observed only for Dyract AP treated with 10% carbamide peroxide. CONCLUSION: In comparison to 10% carbamide peroxide, 10% hydrogen peroxide caused more color changes in the composites tested.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the in vitro microhardness of enamel treated with a 10% carbamide peroxide agent and two desensitizing dentifrices at different bleaching times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 10% carbamide peroxide bleaching agent was evaluated (Rembrandt 10%) (REM). A placebo agent was used as a control group (PLA). The bleaching and the placebo agents were applied to human enamel dental fragments for 8 hours per day, followed by immersion for 5 minutes in a slurry solution of desensitizing dentifrices: Sensodyne (S) or Sensodyne Fluor (SF). During the remaining time, the enamel fragments were individually stored in 13.5 ml of artificial saliva. Knoop microhardness measurements were performed at baseline, 8 hours, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 days of treatment and at 7 and 14 days of a post-treatment period. RESULTS: Analysis of variance and Tukey's test showed no differences in enamel microhardness for REM + SF (P=0.069) and PLA + SF (P=0.93) within each time interval. The dental fragments treated with REM + S and PLA + S showed an increase in microhardness values within each time interval (P<0.0001). There were significant differences among the treatment agents from the 28th to the 56th day. The use of 10% carbamide peroxide bleaching and a desensitizing dentifrice significantly increased the enamel microhardness values during the bleaching treatment and after 14 days after the completion of the treatment. After the post-treatment period, the enamel fragments treated with a placebo agent and with a 10% carbamide peroxide agent and with a desensitizing fluoride dentifrice maintained the baseline values.