Valera Márcia Carneiro, Camargo Carlos Henrique Ribeiro, Carvalho Alessandra Sverberi, Gama Eduardo Ramalho Pereira
Dental School of São José dos Campos, São Paulo State University, UNESP, Brazil.
J Appl Oral Sci. 2006 Jan;14(1):49-52. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572006000100010.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the apical leakage of retrograde cavities filled with Portland Cement (Concrebrás S/A-MG-Brazil), ProRoot MTA (Dentsply International, Johnson City, TN, USA) and Sealapex (Kerr Corporation, Orange, California, USA) with addition of zinc oxide (Odahcam Herpo Produtos Dentários Ltda, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil). Forty-two extracted single-rooted human teeth were decoronated and used for this study. The root canals were instrumented at 1.0mm short of the apical foramen using the step-back technique to an apical ISO size 60. The roots were obturated with gutta-percha points and sealer Sealapex (Kerr Corporation-USA) and then 3mm of each root apex was sectioned at a 90 degrees angle. Ultrasonic retrograde preparation was performed with a diamond tip to 3mm depth and the roots were randomly divided into 3 groups according to the filling material: G1-Portland, G2-ProRoot MTA, G3- Sealapex zinc oxide-added cement. The root surfaces were covered with nail varnish up to 2mm from the apical foramen, immersed in simulated tissue fluid for 30 days, and then immersed in 0.2% Rhodamine B solution for 24 hours for evaluation of marginal leakage. The results showed mean leakage of 0.75, 0.35 and 0.35 for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively; however, Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that there was no statistically significant difference among the results (p>0.05).
本研究的目的是评估用波特兰水泥(巴西米纳斯吉拉斯州康克雷布拉斯公司)、ProRoot MTA(美国田纳西州约翰逊市登士柏国际公司)和添加了氧化锌的Sealapex(美国加利福尼亚州奥兰治市克尔公司)充填的倒充填窝洞的根尖微渗漏情况。42颗拔除的单根人牙被截冠用于本研究。采用逐步后退技术将根管预备至距根尖孔1.0mm处,根尖ISO尺寸为60号。用牙胶尖和Sealapex封闭剂(美国克尔公司)对根管进行充填,然后将每颗牙根尖3mm处以90度角切断。用金刚石车针进行3mm深度的超声倒预备,根据充填材料将牙根随机分为3组:G1-波特兰水泥组,G2-ProRoot MTA组,G3-添加氧化锌的Sealapex水泥组。牙根表面从根尖孔起2mm范围内涂指甲油,浸泡在模拟组织液中30天,然后浸泡在0.2%罗丹明B溶液中24小时以评估边缘微渗漏情况。结果显示,第1、2和3组的平均渗漏值分别为0.75、0.35和0.35;然而,Kruskal-Wallis检验显示结果之间无统计学显著差异(p>0.05)。