As a result of COVID-19 and the subsequent cancellation of the Spring Scientific Meeting 2020, and the Regional Meeting 2020 being an online event, the 2020 BES Poster Prize was cancelled. Unfortunately, in early 2021, the situation with Covid 19 is still causing uncertainty, and so the 2021 Spring Scientific Meeting has now been moved to Thursday 14th October at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Stratford Upon Avon. This will form part of a larger Regional Meeting to to be held at the hotel on 15th and 16th October. Entries will now be invited for the ‘Spring’ Scientific Meeting on Thursday 14th October 2021 for the BES Poster Prize and award of £500. This is an award for the best presentation of a research project. Any registered dentist undertaking or having completed a postgraduate research project is eligible. The principal author will be entitled to registration for the Meeting on 14th October at a reduced rate. Posters will be on display for one day only and judging will take place on the 14th. Details of the size and location of the Poster Boards etc will be sent to you on receipt of your abstract.
The closing date for entries is 15th September 2021.
Abstract submission is via email (email@example.com) using the format below.
A structured Abstract of not more than 400 words should be given that details the aim of the work, what was done, the result and the conclusion(s). Use single spacing and embolden the Abstract headings as indicated below.
Title of Abstract
Surnames and Initials of author(s). Please do not use full stops (.) between initials; separate multiple authors by a comma (,). Identify the presenting author with a superscript* symbol.
Department, School, University (Institution) and city without postcode or details of street etc. Separate the elements of the address with ‘commas’. (,)
AIM: Give a clear statement of the main aim of the study and the main hypothesis tested, if any.
METHODOLOGY: Describe the methods adopted including, as appropriate, the design of the study, the setting, entry requirements for subjects, use of materials, outcome measures and statistical tests.
RESULTS: Give the main results of the study, including the outcome of any statistical analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: State the primary conclusions of the study and their implications. Suggest areas for further research, if appropriate.
WILL BE RETURNED FOR MODIFICATION AND MAY BE REJECTED
Cleaning effectiveness of root canal irrigation with electrochemically activated anolyte and catholyte solutions.
AM Solovyeva*, PMH Dummer
Department of Adult Dental Health, Dental School, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff
Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of electrochemically activated (ECA) anolyte and catholyte solutions to clean root canals during conventional root canal preparation.
Methodology Twenty extracted single-rooted human mature permanent teeth were allocated randomly into 4 groups of 5 teeth. The pulp chambers were accessed and the canals prepared by hand with conventional stainless steel endodontic instruments using the double-flared technique. One or other of the following irrigants was used during preparation: distilled water, 3% NAOCI, neutral anolyte (300 mg/L of active chlorine), and a combination of neutral anolyte (300 mg/L of active chlorine) and catholyte. The teeth were split longitudinally and the canal walls examined for debris and smear layer by scanning electron microscopy. SEM microphotographs were taken separately in the coronal, middle and apical parts of canal at magnification of x800 to evaluate the debridement of extracellular matrix and at a magnification of x2500 to evaluate the presence of smear layer.
Results Irrigation with distilled water did not remove debris in the apical part of canals and left a continuous and firm smear layer overlying compressed low-mineralised predentine. All chemically active irrigants demonstrated improved cleaning potential compared to distilled water. The quality of loose debris elimination was similar for NAOCI and the anolyte solution. The combination of anolyte and catholyte resulted in improved cleaning, particularly in the apical third of canals. The evaluation of smear layer demonstrated that none of irrigants were effective in its total removal; however, chemically active irrigants affected its surface and thickness. Compared to NAOCI the ECA solutions left a thinner smear layer with a smoother and more even surface. It is also important to note that NAOCI enhanced the opening of tubules predominantly in the coronal and middle thirds of canals, whereas ECA solutions resulted in more numerous open dentine tubules throughout the whole length of canals.
Conclusions Irrigation with electrochemically activated solutions cleaned root canal walls and may be an alternative to NAOCI in conventional root canal treatment. Further investigation of ECA solutions for root canal irrigation is warranted.