一种评估根管封闭剂射线阻射性的新体外方法。
A new in vitro method to evaluate radio-opacity of endodontic sealers.
作者信息
Malka V B, Hochscheidt G L, Larentis N L, Grecca F S, Fontanella V R C, Kopper P M P
机构信息
1 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
出版信息
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(5):20140422. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20140422. Epub 2015 Feb 20.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate a new method for assessing the radio-opacity of endodontic sealers and to compare radio-opacity values with a well-established standard method.
METHODS
The sealers evaluated in this study were AH Plus(®) (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), Endo CPM Sealer (EGEO SRL, Buenos Aires, Argentina) and MTA Fillapex(®) (Angelus Dental Products Industry S/A, Londrina, Parana, Brazil). Two methods were used to evaluate radio-opacity: (D) standard discs and (S) a tissue simulator. For (D), ten standard discs were prepared for each sealer and were radiographed using Digora(®) phosphor storage plates (Soredex; Orion Corporation, Helsinki, Finland), alongside an aluminium stepwedge. For (S), polyethylene tubes filled with sealer (n = 10 for each) were radiographed inside the simulator as described. The digital images were analysed using Adobe Photoshop(®) software v. 10.0 (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA). To compare the radio-opacity among the sealers, the data were analysed by ANOVA and Tukey's test, and to compare methods, they were analysed by the Mann-Whitney U test. To compare the data obtained from dentin and sealers in method (S), Student's paired t-test was used (=0.05).
RESULTS
In both methods, the sealers showed significant differences, according to the following decreasing order: AH Plus, MTA Fillapex and Endo CPM. In (D), MTA Fillapex and Endo CPM showed less radio-opacity than aluminium. For all of the materials, the radio-opacity was higher in (S) than in (D). Compared with dentin, all of the materials were more radio-opaque.
CONCLUSIONS
The comparison of the two assessment methods for sealer radio-opacity testing validated the use of a tissue simulator block.
目的
评估一种评估根管封闭剂射线不透性的新方法，并将射线不透性值与一种成熟的标准方法进行比较。
方法
本研究中评估的封闭剂有AH Plus（登士柏德瑞公司，德国康斯坦茨）、Endo CPM封闭剂（EGEO SRL，阿根廷布宜诺斯艾利斯）和MTA Fillapex（安吉利斯牙科产品工业有限公司，巴西巴拉那州隆德里纳）。使用两种方法评估射线不透性：（D）标准圆盘法和（S）组织模拟器法。对于（D）法，为每种封闭剂制备10个标准圆盘，与铝阶梯楔一起使用Digora磷光存储板（Soredex；奥里翁公司，芬兰赫尔辛基）进行射线照相。对于（S）法，将装有封闭剂的聚乙烯管（每种n = 10）按所述方法在模拟器内进行射线照相。使用Adobe Photoshop软件v. 10.0（Adobe系统公司，美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞）分析数字图像。为比较封闭剂之间的射线不透性，数据采用方差分析和Tukey检验进行分析，为比较方法，采用Mann-Whitney U检验进行分析。为比较（S）法中从牙本质和封闭剂获得的数据，使用学生配对t检验（= 0.05）。
结果
在两种方法中，封闭剂均显示出显著差异，按以下降序排列：AH Plus、MTA Fillapex和Endo CPM。在（D）法中，MTA Fillapex和Endo CPM的射线不透性低于铝。对于所有材料，（S）法中的射线不透性高于（D）法。与牙本质相比，所有材料的射线不透性更高。
结论
两种封闭剂射线不透性测试评估方法的比较验证了组织模拟器模块的使用。
Zotero 插件