Zmener Osvaldo, Pameijer Cornelis H, Serrano Susana Alvarez, Palo Renato Mioto, Iglesias Elaine Faga
Postgraduate Program for Specialized Endodontics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, School of Odontology, University of El Salvador/Argentine Dental Association, Buenos Aires, República Argentina.
J Endod. 2009 Sep;35(9):1270-3. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.05.001. Epub 2009 Jun 28.
This study evaluated the effectiveness of the NaviTip FX (Ultradent Products Inc, South Jordan, UT), a 30-gauge brush-covered irrigation needle, in removing debris and smear layer in vitro.
Forty mesio-buccal maxillary and mandibular first molar root canals with 20 degrees to 30 degrees curved roots were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10). The irrigation protocol after cleaning and shaping was as follows: NaOCl/EDTA/nonbrushing (NaED) group: passive use with 5.25% NaOCl followed by 17% EDTA and saline; EDTA/brushing (EDBr) group: passive use with 5.25% NaOCl followed by left and right manual rotary up and down brushing using 17% EDTA and a saline rinse; EDTA/FileEze (Ultradent Products Inc)/brushing (EDFEBr) group: same as EDBr, however, with FileEze; and control group (CG): a standard 30-gauge NaviTip irrigation needle used passively. The roots were split longitudinally and the canals examined in a scanning electron microscope. Debris and smear layer were recorded at 1, 5, and 10 mm from the working length (WL) using a three-step scoring scale and 300-mum square grid. Mean scores were calculated and statistically analyzed (p < 0.05) between and within groups.
Comparison between groups revealed that at all evaluation levels EDBr and EDFEBr groups were significantly cleaner (p < 0.05) than NaED and CG, with no significant difference between them. Comparison within groups did not show significant differences (p > 0.05). All groups showed significantly better smear layer removal (p < 0.05) at 5 and 10 mm from the WL. The EDBr group exhibited no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the three evaluation levels.
In moderately curved root canals, a NaviTip FX used with 5.25% NaOCL and 17% EDTA solution with manual brushing as well as the same method augmented by FileEze was the most effective cleaning protocol.
本研究评估了NaviTip FX（Ultradent Products Inc，美国犹他州南乔丹）这种30号带刷冲洗针在体外清除碎屑和玷污层的效果。
将40颗上颌和下颌近中颊侧第一磨牙的根管，其牙根弯曲度为20度至30度，随机分为四组（每组n = 10）。根管清理和塑形后的冲洗方案如下：次氯酸钠/乙二胺四乙酸/不刷组（NaED组）：被动使用5.25%次氯酸钠，随后使用17%乙二胺四乙酸和生理盐水；乙二胺四乙酸/刷组（EDBr组）：被动使用5.25%次氯酸钠，随后使用17%乙二胺四乙酸进行左右手动旋转上下刷洗，并冲洗生理盐水；乙二胺四乙酸/FileEze（Ultradent Products Inc）/刷组（EDFEBr组）：与EDBr组相同，但使用FileEze；对照组（CG）：被动使用标准的30号NaviTip冲洗针。将牙根纵向劈开，在扫描电子显微镜下检查根管。使用三步评分量表和300微米见方的网格，记录距工作长度（WL）1、5和10毫米处的碎屑和玷污层情况。计算平均得分，并在组间和组内进行统计学分析（p < 0.05）。
组间比较显示，在所有评估水平上，EDBr组和EDFEBr组均显著比NaED组和CG组更清洁（p < 0.05），它们之间无显著差异。组内比较未显示出显著差异（p > 0.05）。所有组在距WL 5和10毫米处的玷污层清除效果均显著更好（p < 0.05）。EDBr组在三个评估水平之间未显示出显著差异（p > 0.05）。
在中度弯曲的根管中，使用5.25%次氯酸钠和17%乙二胺四乙酸溶液并手动刷洗的NaviTip FX，以及使用FileEze增强的相同方法，是最有效的清洁方案。
