Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
J Endod. 2010 Mar;36(3):512-4. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.004. Epub 2010 Jan 25.
There is ongoing debate regarding the ideal sequence, volume, and concentration of irrigants, length of time for irrigation, and irrigation technique to achieve debridement of the root canal system. The aim of this study was to verify the impact of the final rinse technique on smear layer removal ability of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA).
Sixteen single-rooted human teeth were instrumented and divided into 2 groups at the final rinse step according to the following final rinse techniques used: continuous rinse group, continuous rinse with EDTA during 3 minutes, and rinse and soaking group, rinse with 1 mL of EDTA, soaking of the canal for 2 minutes and 30 seconds, and rinse completion with the remaining 4 mL for 30 seconds. The specimens were split lengthwise and observed under scanning electron microscope.
Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests. The continuous rinse group presented more debris-free surfaces when compared with the rinse and soaking group (P<.01). When the root canal areas were compared within the groups, no statistical differences were found (P>.05).
It can be concluded that a continuous rinse with 5 mL of EDTA for 3 minutes can more efficiently remove the smear layer from root canal walls.
对于理想的冲洗液序列、体积和浓度、冲洗时间以及冲洗技术以实现根管系统的清创，目前仍存在争议。本研究旨在验证最终冲洗技术对 17%乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）去除玷污层能力的影响。
16 颗单根人牙在根管预备后，在最终冲洗步骤根据以下最终冲洗技术分为 2 组：连续冲洗组，连续冲洗 3 分钟的 EDTA；冲洗和浸泡组，冲洗 1 mL EDTA，浸泡 2 分 30 秒，用剩余的 4 mL 冲洗 30 秒。将标本纵向劈开，在扫描电子显微镜下观察。
数据采用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Dunn 检验进行分析。与冲洗和浸泡组相比，连续冲洗组呈现更多无碎屑表面（P<.01）。在组内比较根管区域时，未发现统计学差异（P>.05）。
可以得出结论，用 5 mL EDTA 连续冲洗 3 分钟可以更有效地从根管壁上去除玷污层。
