Scott A C, Vire D E, Swanson R
J Endod. 1992 Jul;18(7):340-3. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80485-1.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Thermafil endodontic obturation technique and to compare it with laterally condensed gutta-percha. Thirty-seven maxillary central incisors were similarly prepared and divided into groups. Seventeen were obturated with Thermafil and 17 with lateral condensation. Three served as controls. After vacuum staining, all teeth were cleared and apical dye penetration was evaluated by two independent observers. Average leakage values were 0.24 mm and 1.32 mm for Thermafil and 0.47 mm and 1.18 mm for lateral condensation. There was no significant difference between the techniques, although a difference between evaluators was noted. Final results point to the relative subjectivity of in vitro leakage studies. When comparing the obturation times of both techniques, the Thermafil technique averaged 2 min 56 s while lateral condensation took 3 min 26 s. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in obturation times.
本研究的目的是评估Thermafil根管充填技术，并将其与侧向加压牙胶充填技术进行比较。37颗上颌中切牙经过相似的预备后被分组。17颗用Thermafil技术充填，17颗用侧向加压技术充填，3颗作为对照。经过真空染色后，所有牙齿被清理干净，由两名独立的观察者评估根尖染料渗透情况。Thermafil技术的平均渗漏值为0.24mm和1.32mm，侧向加压技术的平均渗漏值为0.47mm和1.18mm。尽管观察者之间存在差异，但两种技术之间没有显著差异。最终结果表明体外渗漏研究存在相对主观性。比较两种技术的充填时间时，Thermafil技术平均为2分56秒，而侧向加压技术为3分26秒。统计分析表明充填时间没有显著差异。
