School of Dentistry, University of Ribeirão Preto, UNAERP Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Int Endod J. 2014 Mar;47(3):264-70. doi: 10.1111/iej.12142. Epub 2013 Jun 12.
The percentage of Endofill remaining on canal walls after retreatment with different techniques was evaluated using confocal microscopy and qualitative analysis of the interface between the filling material/dentine.
Sixty-four root canals of incisors were prepared with ProTaper, filled with gutta-percha and Endofill mixed with 0.1% rhodamine B. The roots were thermocycled and distributed into groups according to the method of evaluation: GI - direct viewing (DV) and GII - operating microscope (OM) and according to the removal technique: A) ProTaper retreatment (PR), B) PR/xylol, C) ultrasound and D) ultrasound/xylol. The root canals were then refilled with gutta-percha and AH Plus with 0.1% fluorescein and sectioned at 2, 4 and 6 mm from the apex. The percentage of remaining Endofill was analysed by confocal microscopy. Additionally, 16 roots were prepared with a ProTaper F5 instrument and were filled with Endofill + 0.1% rhodamine B/gutta-percha (negative control group) (n = 8), and the positive control group (n = 8) were filled with AH Plus with 0.1% fluorescein/gutta-percha.
Three-way anova demonstrated differences in the method of evaluation, removal techniques and their interaction (P < 0.05). OM (26.15 ± 12.16%) had a smaller percentage of remaining sealer than DV (32.77 ± 14.47%). The Tukey's test revealed that ultrasound/xylol (15.77 ± 7.15%) led to lower percentages of remaining sealer, significantly different from the PR group (35.25 ± 13.63%), PR/xylol (33.03 ± 11.64%) and ultrasound (33.79 ± 11.71%), which were similar (P > 0.05). Qualitative analysis detected that ultrasound had lower remaining Endofill than PR, particularly when combined with xylol. Operating microscope resulted in lower residual sealer, regardless of the removal technique.
None of the protocols was associated with complete removal of the filling material; however, the use of ultrasound/xylol under an OM provided better results.
使用共聚焦显微镜和界面处的牙本质/填充物定性分析,评估使用不同技术对再治疗后的根管壁上的 Endofill 残留百分比。
用 ProTaper 对 64 个切牙根管进行预备,用牙胶和含有 0.1%罗丹明 B 的 Endofill 混合填充。将根进行热循环并根据评价方法分组:GI-直接观察(DV)和 GII-手术显微镜(OM),并根据去除技术分组:A)ProTaper 再治疗(PR),B)PR/二甲苯,C)超声和 D)超声/二甲苯。然后用含有 0.1%荧光素的牙胶和 AH Plus 重新填充根管,并在距根尖 2、4 和 6mm 处进行切片。通过共聚焦显微镜分析剩余的 Endofill 百分比。此外,用 ProTaper F5 器械预备 16 个根管,并用 Endofill+0.1%罗丹明 B/牙胶(阴性对照组)(n=8)填充,阳性对照组(n=8)用含有 0.1%荧光素的 AH Plus/牙胶填充。
三因素方差分析显示评价方法、去除技术及其相互作用之间存在差异(P<0.05)。OM(26.15±12.16%)的剩余密封剂百分比小于 DV(32.77 ± 14.47%)。Tukey 检验显示,超声/二甲苯(15.77±7.15%)导致的剩余密封剂百分比明显低于 PR 组(35.25±13.63%)、PR/二甲苯(33.03±11.64%)和超声(33.79±11.71%),差异有统计学意义(P>0.05)。定性分析发现,超声组的剩余 Endofill 低于 PR 组,特别是与二甲苯联合使用时。无论去除技术如何,手术显微镜都会导致残留的密封剂减少。
没有一种方案能完全去除填充物,但在 OM 下使用超声/二甲苯可获得更好的效果。