Lu Y, Wang R, Zhang L, Li H L, Zheng Q H, Zhou X D, Huang D M
State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu.
Int Endod J. 2013 Dec;46(12):1125-30. doi: 10.1111/iej.12104. Epub 2013 Apr 8.
To compare the amount of apically extruded debris and irrigant produced by two Ni-Ti instruments and hand files when removing root fillings, and to compare two experimental models.
Sixty single straight root canals in human mandibular premolars were prepared with K-files and filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 20 for removal of the root filling material with Reciproc files (Group 1, RP), Mtwo retreatment files (Group 2, MR) or hand files (Group 3, H). Each group was then equally divided into experimental subgroups: A, with 1.5% agar gel model (AG); B, with empty tube model (ET). Apically extruded debris and irrigant was quantified by subtracting the initial weight of the test apparatus without a tooth from its weight after the root canal retreatment. Comparative analysis of the amount of apically extruded debris and irrigant for each of the instruments and the experimental models was performed. Time for gutta-percha removal was recorded. Data were statistically analysed using one-way analysis of variance.
Removal of root fillings with two Ni-Ti instruments produced less apically extruded debris and irrigant than hand files in both experimental models (P < 0.05). More apically extruded debris and irrigant was produced with Reciproc files than Mtwo retreatment files using the 1.5% agar gel model (P > 0.05). Significantly more apically extruded debris and irrigant was produced with Reciproc files than Mtwo retreatment files using the empty tube model (P < 0.05). The time required to remove the root fillings followed Reciproc<Mtwo R<hand files (P < 0.05).
All the instruments produced apically extruded debris and irrigant. The two Ni-Ti instruments produced less apically extruded debris and irrigant than hand files. A 1.5% agar gel can provide resistance to apically extruded debris and irrigant and may represent the clinical situation better than the empty tube model.
比较两种镍钛器械和手动锉在去除根管充填物时根尖部挤出的碎屑和冲洗液的量,并比较两种实验模型。
用K锉预备60颗人下颌前磨牙的单根直根管,并用牙胶和AH Plus封闭剂充填。将牙齿随机分为三组,每组20颗,分别用Reciproc锉(第1组,RP)、Mtwo再治疗锉(第2组,MR)或手动锉(第3组,H)去除根管充填材料。然后每组再平均分为实验亚组:A组,采用1.5%琼脂凝胶模型(AG);B组,采用空管模型(ET)。通过用根管再治疗后测试器械的重量减去无牙时测试器械的初始重量来量化根尖部挤出的碎屑和冲洗液。对每种器械和实验模型的根尖部挤出的碎屑和冲洗液的量进行比较分析。记录去除牙胶的时间。数据采用单因素方差分析进行统计学分析。
在两种实验模型中,使用两种镍钛器械去除根管充填物时产生的根尖部挤出的碎屑和冲洗液均少于手动锉(P < 0.05)。在1.5%琼脂凝胶模型中,使用Reciproc锉比Mtwo再治疗锉产生的根尖部挤出的碎屑和冲洗液更多(P > 0.05)。在空管模型中,使用Reciproc锉比Mtwo再治疗锉产生的根尖部挤出的碎屑和冲洗液明显更多(P < 0.05)。去除根管充填物所需时间为Reciproc<Mtwo R<手动锉(P < 0.05)。
所有器械均产生根尖部挤出的碎屑和冲洗液。两种镍钛器械产生的根尖部挤出的碎屑和冲洗液少于手动锉。1.5%琼脂凝胶可对根尖部挤出的碎屑和冲洗液起到阻挡作用,可能比空管模型更能代表临床情况。