Duggan Derek, Arnold Roland R, Teixeira Fabricio B, Caplan Daniel J, Tawil Peter
Department of Endodontics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7450, USA.
J Endod. 2009 Jun;35(6):852-7. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.050.
The purpose of this study was to subject 2 carrier-based root filling products to a 4-month microbial challenge in a dog model with histologic markers to assess periapical inflammation and bacterial penetration of the 2 filling materials. Histologic evidence of bacterial penetration and periapical inflammation were the outcome parameters used to compare the products.
Teeth were aseptically prepared and then filled with carrier-based Resilon (RealSeal 1 [RS-1], n = 25) or with carrier-based gutta-percha (Thermafil, n = 25) and were left exposed for 4 months. The first control group received a coronal seal over either RS-1 or Thermafil root fillings (n = 8). A second control group was instrumented and left completely empty (n = 8).
Histologic evidence of periapical inflammation was observed in 29% of the Thermafil group and in 9% of the RS-1 group. This difference was only significant when controlling for a possible tooth position effect on inflammation presence (P < .05). Histologic evidence of bacterial penetration was present in 9% of the RS-1 group and in 70% of the Thermafil group. The difference in penetration rates between RS-1 and Thermafil was statistically significant when controlling for any dog or tooth position effects on bacterial penetration (P < .001). Furthermore, there was a statistically significant correlation between histologic evidence of inflammation and histologic evidence of infection (P = .002).
RS-1 appeared to resist bacterial penetration more effectively than Thermafil under the conditions of this study.
本研究的目的是在犬模型中，对两种基于载体的根管充填产品进行为期4个月的微生物挑战，并使用组织学标记物评估根尖周炎症以及这两种充填材料的细菌侵入情况。细菌侵入和根尖周炎症的组织学证据是用于比较这两种产品的结果参数。
牙齿经无菌处理后，分别用基于载体的Resilon（RealSeal 1 [RS - 1]，n = 25）或基于载体的牙胶（Thermafil，n = 25）进行充填，并暴露4个月。第一对照组在RS - 1或Thermafil根管充填物上进行冠部封闭（n = 8）。第二对照组进行根管预备后保持完全空管（n = 8）。
Thermafil组中29%观察到根尖周炎症的组织学证据，RS - 1组中为9%。仅在控制了牙齿位置对炎症存在可能的影响后，这一差异才具有统计学意义（P <.05）。RS - 1组中9%存在细菌侵入的组织学证据，Thermafil组中为70%。在控制了犬或牙齿位置对细菌侵入的任何影响后，RS - 1和Thermafil之间的侵入率差异具有统计学意义（P <.001）。此外，炎症的组织学证据与感染的组织学证据之间存在统计学显著相关性（P =.002）。
在本研究条件下，RS - 1似乎比Thermafil更有效地抵抗细菌侵入。
