Kanter Valerie, Weldon Emily, Nair Uma, Varella Claudio, Kanter Keith, Anusavice Kenneth, Pileggi Roberta
Department of Endodontics, University of Florida, College of Dentistry at Gainesville, Gainesville, FL 32610-0436, USA.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011 Dec;112(6):809-13. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.06.002. Epub 2011 Sep 9.
The purpose of this study was to compare 2 irrigation techniques by evaluating canal cleanliness and obturation of lateral/accessory canals.
Seventy-five extracted canines were instrumented to a size #40/0.06 taper. The EndoActivator (EA) was compared with an ultrasonic unit for final irrigation. Each unit was used for 1 minute each with 6.15% NaOCl and 17% EDTA. A control group received syringe irrigation. Thirty teeth were sectioned and evaluated for debris removal and open dentinal tubules at 3/5 mm from the apical foramen with a scanning electron microscope. Forty-five teeth were examined for obturation of lateral canals.
The EA was significantly better in removing debris at all levels when compared with other treatment groups (P < .05) and resulted in obturation of significantly more numbers of lateral canals (P < .01.)
The EA provided better obturation of lateral and accessory canals and resulted in less remaining debris.
本研究旨在通过评估根管清洁度以及侧支/副根管的充填情况来比较两种冲洗技术。
将75颗拔除的犬牙预备至40/0.06锥度。将EndoActivator（EA）与超声设备用于最终冲洗进行比较。每种设备分别使用含6.15%次氯酸钠和17%乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）的冲洗液各冲洗1分钟。对照组采用注射器冲洗。30颗牙齿进行切片，并用扫描电子显微镜评估距根尖孔3/5毫米处的碎屑清除情况及开放的牙本质小管。45颗牙齿用于检查侧支根管的充填情况。
与其他治疗组相比，EA在各个水平的碎屑清除方面均显著更好（P < 0.05），并且导致更多数量的侧支根管被充填（P < 0.01）。
EA能更好地充填侧支和副根管，且残留碎屑更少。
