Department of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University, Paris, France.
J Endod. 2010 Aug;36(8):1361-6. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.037. Epub 2010 May 13.
A final flush with chelating agents and antiseptic irrigating solutions is needed to remove the smear layer. The improvement of these protocols is possible by using specific delivery and agitation techniques. This study examined the effect of different final irrigation regimens and methods of activation on smear layer removal in curved canals after root canal instrumentation.
Mesial root canals of 50 extracted mandibular molars were prepared using ProTaper rotary files (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and 3% NaOCl. Teeth were then allocated to two control groups and four experimental groups (n = 10) for final irrigation as follows: no-activation group (final rinse with a 27-gauge needle and 17% EDTA/3% NaOCl), manual-dynamic activation group (final rinse 17% EDTA/3% NaOCl + gutta-percha agitation), automated-dynamic activation group (final rinse 17% EDTA/3% NaOCl + RinsEndo [Dürr Dental GmbH & Co KG, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany]), and sonic-activation group (final rinse 17% EDTA/3% NaOCl + Endoactivator [Advanced Endodontics, Santa Barbara, CA]). All mesial roots were split with a new approach to allow visualization of every third of the canal, particularly the apical third. The samples were prepared for scanning electron microscopic observation to assess the smear layer removal. Blind scoring was performed by two calibrated observers using a five-score scale. The differences in smear layer scores between the experimental groups were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was set at p = 0.05.
Very high levels of root canal cleanliness (< or = score 3) were found for each test group with activation. For the middle and apical third, the no-activation group was significantly less effective than the three other activation groups (p < 0.05). The manual-dynamic activation group (final rinse 17%EDTA/3%NaOCl + gutta-percha agitation) and the sonic-activation group (final rinse 17%EDTA/3%NaOCl + Endoactivator) showed significantly better smear layer removal (p < 0.05) in comparison with the other test groups in the apical third.
Root canal cleanliness benefits from solutions activation (especially sonic activation and manual-dynamic activation) in comparison with no activation during the final irrigation regimen.
需要使用螯合剂和防腐剂冲洗液进行最后的冲洗,以去除玷污层。通过使用特定的输送和搅拌技术,可以改进这些方案。本研究检查了不同的最终冲洗方案和激活方法对根管器械后弯曲根管内玷污层去除的影响。
使用 Protaper 旋转锉(Dentsply Maillefer,Ballaigues,瑞士)和 3% NaOCl 对 50 个下颌磨牙的近中根管进行预备。然后将牙齿分为两组对照和四组实验组(每组 10 个)进行最终冲洗,具体如下:无激活组(用 27 号针和 17% EDTA/3% NaOCl 进行最终冲洗)、手动-动力激活组(用 17% EDTA/3% NaOCl+牙胶搅动进行最终冲洗)、自动-动力激活组(用 17% EDTA/3% NaOCl+RinsEndo[Dürr Dental GmbH & Co KG,Bietigheim-Bissingen,德国]进行最终冲洗)和超声激活组(用 17% EDTA/3% NaOCl+Endoactivator[Advanced Endodontics,圣巴巴拉,CA]进行最终冲洗)。所有近中根均采用新方法劈开,以允许观察每三分之一的根管,特别是根尖三分之一。制备样本进行扫描电子显微镜观察,以评估玷污层的去除情况。两名经过校准的观察者使用五分制进行盲法评分。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验和 Mann-Whitney U 检验分析实验组之间的玷污层评分差异。显著性水平设为 p = 0.05。
每个有激活作用的实验组的根管清洁度都达到了很高的水平(<或=评分 3)。对于中三分之一和根尖三分之一,无激活组的效果明显低于其他三组(p<0.05)。手动-动力激活组(用 17% EDTA/3% NaOCl+牙胶搅动进行最终冲洗)和超声激活组(用 17% EDTA/3% NaOCl+Endoactivator 进行最终冲洗)在根尖三分之一处的玷污层去除效果明显优于其他实验组(p<0.05)。
与最终冲洗方案中的无激活相比,溶液激活(尤其是超声激活和手动-动力激活)可提高根管清洁度。