Reciproc(®)和Profile(®)器械在体外从直根管和弯根管中去除牙胶的效果。
Efficacy of Reciproc(®) and Profile(®) Instruments in the Removal of Gutta-Percha from Straight and Curved Root Canals ex Vivo.
作者信息
Marfisi Karem, Mercadé Montserrat, Plotino Gianluca, Clavel Tatiana, Duran-Sindreu Fernando, Roig Miguel
机构信息
Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona Spain.
Department of Endodontics, "Sapienza" - University of Rome, Rome Italy.
出版信息
J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2015 Jun 30;6(3):e1. doi: 10.5037/jomr.2015.6301. eCollection 2015 Jul-Sep.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy of Reciproc(®) (VDW GmbH) and ProFile(®) (Dentsply Maillefer) instruments at removing gutta-percha from straight and curved root canals ex vivo filled using the cold lateral condensation and GuttaMaster(®) (VDW GmbH) techniques.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Forty mesial roots of mandibular molars with two curved canals and 80 single-rooted teeth with straight root canals, a total of 160 root canals, were randomly assigned to eight groups (canals per group = 20) according to filling technique, retreatment instrument and root canal curvature as follows: Group I, cold lateral condensation/ProFile(®)/straight; Group II, cold lateral condensation/ProFile(®)/curved; Group III, cold lateral condensation/Reciproc(®)/straight; Group IV, cold lateral condensation/Reciproc(®)/curved; Group V, GuttaMaster(®)/ProFile(®)/straight; Group VI, GuttaMaster(®)/ProFile(®)/curved; Group VII, GuttaMaster(®)/Reciproc(®)/straight; and Group VIII, GuttaMaster(®)/Reciproc(®)/curved. The following data were recorded: procedural errors, retreatment duration and canal wall cleanliness. Means and standard deviations were calculated and analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (P < 0.05).
RESULTS
Reciproc(®) instruments were significantly faster than ProFile(®) instruments at removing GuttaMaster(®) from both straight (P = 0.0001) and curved (P = 0.0003) root canals. Reciproc(®) were statistically more effective than ProFile(®) instruments in removing GuttaMaster(®) from straight root canals (P = 0.021). Regardless of filling technique or retreatment instrument, gutta-percha was removed more rapidly from curved than from straight root canals (P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Neither system completely removed filling material from the root canals. Compared with ProFile(®) instruments, Reciproc(®) instruments removed GuttaMaster(®) filling material from straight and curved root canals more rapidly.
目的
比较Reciproc（®）（VDW有限公司）器械和ProFile（®）（登士柏迈耶费尔公司）器械在体外从使用冷侧方加压法和GuttaMaster（®）（VDW有限公司）技术充填的直根管和弯根管中去除牙胶的效果。
材料与方法
选取40颗下颌磨牙的近中根，每颗牙有两条弯曲根管，以及80颗单根管的直根管牙齿，共160个根管，根据充填技术、再治疗器械和根管弯曲度随机分为八组（每组根管数 = 20），如下：第一组，冷侧方加压法/ProFile（®）/直根管；第二组，冷侧方加压法/ProFile（®）/弯根管；第三组，冷侧方加压法/Reciproc（®）/直根管；第四组，冷侧方加压法/Reciproc（®）/弯根管；第五组，GuttaMaster（®）/ProFile（®）/直根管；第六组，GuttaMaster（®）/ProFile（®）/弯根管；第七组，GuttaMaster（®）/Reciproc（®）/直根管；第八组，GuttaMaster（®）/Reciproc（®）/弯根管。记录以下数据：操作失误、再治疗时间和根管壁清洁度。计算均值和标准差，并使用Kruskal-Wallis检验、单因素方差分析和Tukey检验进行分析（P < 0.05）。
结果
在从直根管（P = 0.0001）和弯根管（P = 0.0003）中去除GuttaMaster（®）方面，Reciproc（®）器械明显比ProFile（®）器械快。在从直根管中去除GuttaMaster（®）方面，Reciproc（®）器械在统计学上比ProFile（®）器械更有效（P = 0.021）。无论充填技术或再治疗器械如何，从弯根管中去除牙胶比从直根管中更快（P = 0.0001）。
结论
两种系统均未完全从根管中去除充填材料。与ProFile（®）器械相比，Reciproc（®）器械能更快地从直根管和弯根管中去除GuttaMaster（®）充填材料。
Zotero 插件