Camps Jean, Pashley David
Unité IMEB, Faculté d'Odontologie, Marseille, France.
J Endod. 2003 Sep;29(9):592-4. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200309000-00012.
The purpose of this study was to compare the classical dye-penetration method to a dye-extraction method, with a fluid-filtration method as control. Forty teeth were prepared with a ProFile device and divided into four groups (n = 10 per group) according to the sealer used for the lateral condensation: Pulp Canal Sealer, Sealapex, AH Plus, and Ketac-Endo. The apical seal was evaluated on the same teeth with all three methods, successively: a fluid-filtration method, a dye-penetration method with 2% methylene blue, and a new method where the roots were dissolved in 65% nitric acid to extract the methylene blue before reading the absorbance of the solution. The classical dye penetration did not show any difference among the sealers and showed no correlation with the two other techniques. The fluid filtration (p < 0.01) and the dye extraction (p < 0.01) showed that Sealapex displayed the highest apical leakage. The correlation between the results obtained with these two methods was significant (p = 0.001 and r = 0.7). This study showed the limitation of the classical dye-penetration studies and that the dye-extraction, i.e. dissolution, method gave the same results as fluid filtration but saved much laboratory time.
本研究的目的是将经典的染料渗透法与染料萃取法进行比较,并以流体过滤法作为对照。使用ProFile器械制备40颗牙齿,并根据用于侧向加压的封闭剂分为四组(每组n = 10):牙髓根管封闭剂、Sealapex、AH Plus和Ketac-Endo。使用所有三种方法依次对同一颗牙齿的根尖封闭情况进行评估:流体过滤法、2%亚甲蓝的染料渗透法,以及一种新方法,即在读取溶液吸光度之前,将牙根溶解于65%硝酸中以提取亚甲蓝。经典的染料渗透法在不同封闭剂之间未显示出任何差异,并且与其他两种技术均无相关性。流体过滤法(p < 0.01)和染料萃取法(p < 0.01)显示Sealapex的根尖微渗漏最高。这两种方法所得结果之间的相关性显著(p = 0.001,r = 0.7)。本研究显示了经典染料渗透研究的局限性,并且染料萃取法(即溶解法)与流体过滤法结果相同,但节省了大量实验室时间。