OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the capacity of 2% chlorhexidine gel associated with 8% papain gel in comparison with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite in bovine pulp tissue dissolution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety bovine pulps of standardized sizes were used and fragmented into 5-mm sizes. The fragments were removed from the root middle third region. They were divided into 6 experimental groups (n = 15), 1) 8% papain; 2) 2% chlorhexidine; 3) 2% chlorhexidine associated with 8% papain; 4) 0.9% saline solution; 5) 2.5% sodium hypochlorite; and 6) 5.25% sodium hypochlorite. The pulp fragments were weighed and put into immobile test tubes for dissolution for time intervals of 30, 60, 90, and 120 min. RESULTS: The 5.25% sodium hypochlorite had greater dissolution potential than the pure papain, and when associated with chlorhexidine, both promoted greater dissolution than did the saline solution and 2% chlorhexidine groups (p < 0.05). The 2.5% sodium hypochlorite promoted dissolution to a lesser extent than the groups with papain within a period of 30 min (p < 0.05), but, was comparable to the saline solution and chlorhexidine. After 120 min, the 2.5% and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite promoted dissolution of 100% of the pulp fragments, and papain, 61%, while chlorhexidine associated with papain and chlorhexidine alone dissolved only 55% and 3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 8% papain in gel, both alone and in association with chlorhexidine, was able to dissolve bovine pulp tissue, but to a lesser extent than did 5.25% sodium hypochlorite.
Chlorhexidine* ; Endodontics ; Papain* ; Sodium Chloride ; Sodium Hypochlorite

Objective: To evaluate the reasons influencing the preferences for a certain type of orthodontic appliance over another among prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists. Methods: A total of 49 PP and 51 orthodontists were asked about their preferences for the following appliances: clear aligners (CA), lingual metallic brackets (LMB), polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, and buccal metallic brackets (BMB). The participants rated the importance of 17 potential reasons that would explain their choices. The reasons that contributed most to these preferences were identified. Non-parametric tests (Fisher’s exact, χ2 and Mann–Whitney tests) and multivariate analyses (regression and discriminant analysis) were used to assess the data (α = 0.05). Results: CA and BMB were the most chosen appliances by PP and orthodontists, respectively.LMB was the most rejected option among both groups of participants (p < 0.001). Rates of the importance of pain/discomfort, smile esthetics, finishing details, and feeding/speech impairment showed the highest differences between PP and orthodontists (p < 0.0005). Discriminant analyses showed that individuals who considered treatment time and smile esthetics as more important were more likely to prefer CA, while those who prioritized finishing details and cost were more likely to choose BMB (p < 0.05). Conclusions Reasons related to comfort and quality of life during use were considered as more important by PP, while those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant by orthodontists.

Objective: To evaluate the reasons influencing the preferences for a certain type of orthodontic appliance over another among prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists. Methods: A total of 49 PP and 51 orthodontists were asked about their preferences for the following appliances: clear aligners (CA), lingual metallic brackets (LMB), polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, and buccal metallic brackets (BMB). The participants rated the importance of 17 potential reasons that would explain their choices. The reasons that contributed most to these preferences were identified. Non-parametric tests (Fisher’s exact, χ2 and Mann–Whitney tests) and multivariate analyses (regression and discriminant analysis) were used to assess the data (α = 0.05). Results: CA and BMB were the most chosen appliances by PP and orthodontists, respectively.LMB was the most rejected option among both groups of participants (p < 0.001). Rates of the importance of pain/discomfort, smile esthetics, finishing details, and feeding/speech impairment showed the highest differences between PP and orthodontists (p < 0.0005). Discriminant analyses showed that individuals who considered treatment time and smile esthetics as more important were more likely to prefer CA, while those who prioritized finishing details and cost were more likely to choose BMB (p < 0.05). Conclusions Reasons related to comfort and quality of life during use were considered as more important by PP, while those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant by orthodontists.