Jenkins Stephen, Kulild James, Williams Karen, Lyons William, Lee Charles
Department of Endodontics, UMKC School of Dentistry, Kansas City, Missouri 64108, USA.
J Endod. 2006 Mar;32(3):225-7. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.042.
There were 130 single roots randomly assigned to one of 12 experimental or two control groups. Forty specimens each were sealed with 1, 2, 3, or 4 mm of Cavit, ProRoot MTA, or Tetric. After creation of a uniform orifice diameter, the smear layer was removed and the canal systems obturated using warm lateral compaction of gutta-percha (GP). GP was removed to the experimental depth, experimental materials placed in the orifice, and roots submerged in India ink in a vacuum flask. Specimens were demineralized and leakage measured using a 10x stereomicroscope and graded for depth of leakage by one calibrated, blinded rater. There was no significant interaction (p > 0.05) between test materials and orifice depths, nor main effect of orifice depth (p > 0.05). However, there was a statistically significant main effect of test materials with Tetric demonstrating a significantly better seal than Pro Root or Cavit (p < 0.0001) irrespective of orifice depth.
130个单根随机分配到12个实验组或2个对照组之一。每组40个标本分别用1、2、3或4毫米的Cavit、ProRoot MTA或Tetric进行封闭。在创建统一的根管口直径后，去除玷污层，采用热牙胶侧向加压法（GP）充填根管系统。将牙胶去除至实验深度，在根管口放置实验材料，然后将牙根浸泡在真空瓶中的印度墨水中。标本脱矿后，使用10倍体视显微镜测量渗漏情况，并由一名经过校准的、不知情的评估者根据渗漏深度进行分级。测试材料与根管口深度之间无显著交互作用（p>0.05），根管口深度也无主效应（p>0.05）。然而，测试材料有统计学上的显著主效应，无论根管口深度如何，Tetric的封闭效果均显著优于Pro Root或Cavit（p<0.0001）。
