| Literature DB >> 24744541 |
Gurparkash Singh Chahal1, Kamalpreet Chhina2, Vipin Chhabra2, Rakhi Bhatnagar2, Amna Chahal1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A surface smear layer consisting of organic and inorganic material is formed on the root surface following mechanical instrumentation and may inhibit the formation of new connective tissue attachment to the root surface. Modification of the tooth surface by root conditioning has resulted in improved connective tissue attachment and has advanced the goal of reconstructive periodontal treatment. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of citric acid, tetracycline, and doxycycline on the instrumented periodontally involved root surfaces in vitro using a scanning electron microscope. SETTINGS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Citric acid; scanning electron microscope; tetracycline hydrochloride
Year: 2014 PMID: 24744541 PMCID: PMC3988639 DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.128196
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Indian Soc Periodontol ISSN: 0972-124X
Figure 1Surface morphology of root specimen treated with citric acid (pH 1) at a magnification of ×2000
Figure 6Surface morphology of root specimens treated with doxycycline (pH 2.2) at a magnification of ×6000
Total number of tubules, number of patent tubules, percentage of patent tubules, and diameter of tubules in root sections in the three experimental groups
Graph 1Graphic representation of mean number of tubules per unit area in the three study groups
Graph 4Graphic representation of mean diameter of tubules (μm) in the three study groups
Mean comparison of total number of tubules between all the three study groups
Graph 5Graphic representation of group-wise mean difference of total number of tubules per unit area
Mean comparison of number of patent tubules per unit area between all the three study groups
Graph 6Graphic representation of group-wise mean difference of patent number of tubules per unit area
Mean comparison of percentage of patent tubules between all the three study groups
Graph 7Graphic representation of group-wise mean difference of percentage of patent tubules
Mean comparison of diameter of tubules between all the three study
Graph 8Graphic representation of group-wise mean difference of diameter of patent tubules (μm)