BES/QED Poster Prize - Spring Scientific Meeting

Online submission

Click here to submit entries for the BES/QES Poster Prize

The posters will be displayed during the meeting usually held on the second Saturday in March, and judged for the QED/BES sponsored Poster Prize of £500. This is therefore 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 SSM at a reduced rate. 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 the last day of February.

Winners will be invited to receive their award at the following Regional Meeting of the BES. The registration fee for the conference will be £60.00.

Abstracts

Abstract submission is online using a form which asks for a prepared Word document (docx format is preferred) using the format below.

Abstract Format

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
[New line]
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.
[New line]
Department, School, University (Institution) and city without postcode or details of street etc. Separate the elements of the address with 'commas'. (,)
[New line]
AIM: Give a clear statement of the main aim of the study and the main hypothesis tested, if any.
[New line]
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.
[New line]
RESULTS: Give the main results of the study, including the outcome of any statistical analysis.
[New line]
CONCLUSIONS: State the primary conclusions of the study and their implications. Suggest areas for further research, if appropriate.

IF THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT FOLLOWED THE ABSTRACT
WILL BE RETURNED FOR MODIFICATION AND MAY BE REJECTED

Sample Abstract

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.