Background/Objectives: Inexperienced dentists and dental students are especially prone to misdiagnosis, and this represents a huge problem regarding antimicrobial stewardship. We aimed to develop a mobile app for rational antibiotic prescribing in dentistry based on local–systemic symptoms and patient factors, rather than solely on diagnosis, to tackle misdiagnosis. Methods: The study involved 64 participants, 50 of which were third-year dental students attending a pharmacology course focusing on antimicrobials, comprising lectures and practical sessions without (noAPP group, n = 22) or with (APP group n = 28) the assistance of a mobile application. The other 14 participants were practicing dentists who decided to register and use the application. All registered users of the application were asked to take a feedback survey, while learning outcomes were evaluated via a pharmacology quiz. Results: A decision tree was used for application development. In total, 76 impressions were collected on the application. The majority of the impressions were related to odontogenic–endodontic infections. Multiple linear regression analysis did not reveal differences in survey responses between practicing dentists and undergraduate students in the feedback survey responses. There was a significant difference in the mean pharmacology test scores between the noAPP and APP groups (5.50 ± 1.80 vs. 7.21 ± 1.03, p = 0.0001). Conclusions: The dentalantibiotic.com application was developed to support rational antibiotic prescribing, in view of tackling misdiagnosis, among inexperienced dentists, as well as to assist in undergraduates’ pharmacology learning, and the current study shows its large impact as an educational tool. The majority of participants considered it easy to use, efficient in facilitating the right antibiotic choice, and useful for everyday decision-making.

Background/Aim: Radiopacity enables radiographic visualization, which is significant in diagnostic procedures and assessment of the quality of endodontic filling. It is important to compare newly developed endodontic sealers with materials that are already in clinical use in order to promote evidence-based dentistry. The aim of our study was to evaluate radiopacity of different calcium silicate-based sealers in comparison with control, epoxy resin-based sealer. The null hypothesis was that there were no statistically significant differences in radiopacity of the tested sealers. Material and Methods: Premixed (TotalFill BC Sealer, EndoSequence BC Sealer, Ceraseal, Bio-C Sealer), two-component (BioRoot RCS, MTA Fillapex, Bioceramic Root Canal Sealer, GuttaFlow Bioseal) calcium silicate-based sealers and AH Plus, as a control, were used. Specimens were radiographed using a Radiovisiography (RVG-4) CCD (charge-coupled devices)-based digital sensor. Results: Ceraseal had the highest, while Bioceramic Root Canal Sealer had the lowest radiopacity. Bioceramic Root Canal Sealer and MTA Fillapex had radiopacity significantly lower than all other sealers. Radiopacity level of AH Plus, was similar to premixed and significantly higher than radiopacities of all two-component endodontic sealers. Conclusions: Calcium silicate-based sealers radiopacity ranged from slightly above minimal required value (3mm), to a value higher than control sealer. Premixed endodontic sealers showed similar radiopacity as AH Plus which suggests that their clinical performance, in terms of visibility on dental radiograms, should be similar

The calcium silicate-based sealers currently available on the market have different compositions and formulations, which is why their physical and chemical properties may vary. (1) The aim of the study was to measure the physico-chemical properties of calcium silicate-based sealers and their push-out bond strength to root dentine, comparing two push-out testing protocols. (2) Standardized specimens of EndoSequence BC, BioRoot RCS, MTA Fillapex, and AH Plus (control) were subjected to pH measurements over 28 days. Radiopacity was measured using a CCD sensor, and flexural strength was assessed using a three-point bending setup. Push-out bond strength was measured in coronal, middle, and apical sections of 40 single-root teeth (conventional method), and cylindrical cavities were prepared for all sealers on the same root dentine disks in 11 third molars (disk method). (3) EndoSequence BC exhibited a higher pH than MTA Fillapex and the highest radiopacity (p < 0.05). The highest flexural and push-out bond strengths were found for AH Plus. The push-out bond strength of EndoSequence BC and BioRoot RCS was higher than MTA Fillapex (p < 0.05). The conventional and disk methods exhibited similar push-out bond strength results, but the data were more homogeneously distributed in the disk method. (4) All calcium silicate-based sealers exhibited a higher pH than AH Plus. MTA Fillapex did not meet the ISO standard. Calcium silicate-based sealers showed weaker performance in terms of physical properties compared to AH Plus.