Hollanda Augusto Cesar Braz, Estrela Cyntia Rodrigues De Araujo, Decurcio Daniel De Almeida, Silva Julio Almeida, Estrela Carlos
Federal University of Goias, Goiania, GO, Brazil.
Gen Dent. 2009 Jul-Aug;57(4):368-73.
This study sought to compare the leakage of micro-organisms through root canals that had been obturated using one of three commercial endodontic sealers. Forty maxillary anterior human teeth were randomly assigned to one of three groups, depending on the sealer used. This study utilized an in vitro microbial leakage test with a split chamber design. A mixture of bacterial markers was placed in the upper chamber and could reach the lower chamber (which contained brain heart infusion broth) only by leaking through the root canal filling. Microbial leakage was checked daily for 60 days and data were analyzed statistically by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. The materials were further evaluated for antimicrobial effect by an agar diffusion test. The results of the leakage test showed no statistically significant difference between Sealer 26 and AH Plus, although both materials differed significantly from Resilon/Epiphany, which took less time to display microbial leakage. All three sealers demonstrated microbial leakage in less than 60 days; however, the agar diffusion test showed that AH Plus and Resilon/Epiphany induced significantly larger microbial inhibition zones than those induced by Sealer 26.
本研究旨在比较使用三种市售根管充填封闭剂之一充填的根管中微生物的渗漏情况。根据所使用的封闭剂,将40颗上颌前牙随机分为三组。本研究采用了带有分隔腔设计的体外微生物渗漏试验。将细菌标志物混合物置于上腔室,其只能通过根管充填物渗漏才能到达下腔室(其中含有脑心浸液肉汤)。连续60天每天检查微生物渗漏情况,并通过Kruskal-Wallis检验和Mann-Whitney检验对数据进行统计学分析。通过琼脂扩散试验进一步评估材料的抗菌效果。渗漏试验结果显示,封闭剂26和AH Plus之间无统计学显著差异,尽管这两种材料与Resilon/Epiphany均有显著差异,后者显示微生物渗漏的时间更短。所有三种封闭剂均在60天内出现微生物渗漏;然而,琼脂扩散试验表明,AH Plus和Resilon/Epiphany诱导的微生物抑制圈明显大于封闭剂26诱导的抑制圈。