Sisli Selen Nihal, Ozbas Hakan
Department of Endodontics, Baskent University Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Endodontics, Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul, Turkey.
J Endod. 2017 Jan;43(1):147-151. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.09.017. Epub 2016 Dec 6.
This study compared the effects of different mixing and placement techniques on sealing of ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and MTA Angelus (Soluçoes Odontologicas, Londrina, Brazil) apical plugs using micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) imaging.
Standardized divergent open apex models were created using 120 extracted maxillary incisors and divided into 8 groups (n = 15). ProRoot MTA and MTA Angelus were mixed manually or mechanically and introduced to form apical plugs by hand condensation or indirect ultrasonic activation for 10 seconds. The samples were scanned using micro-CT imaging, and volumetric analysis of the voids between the dentin walls and the apical plugs and the porosity inside MTA was performed.
Irrespective of the mixing and placement techniques used, the voids between the dentin walls and the apical plugs in the MTA Angelus groups were greater than those in the ProRoot MTA groups (P < .05). The mechanically mixed groups were significantly less porous than the manually mixed groups (P < .05). Combined mechanical mixing and indirect ultrasonic activation yielded a less porous structure for both types of MTA than combined manual mixing and hand condensation (P < .05). Marginal adaptation for ProRoot MTA, both mixed and placed manually, was greater than for MTA Angelus (P < .05), but no difference was found when indirect ultrasonic activation was performed (P > .05).
ProRoot MTA showed better marginal adaptation than MTA Angelus. Mechanically mixed products had better handling characteristics than the manually mixed product. Indirect ultrasonic activation did improve the adaptation of manually mixed MTA Angelus to the dentin walls.
本研究使用显微计算机断层扫描(micro-CT)成像技术,比较了不同混合和放置技术对ProRoot MTA(登士柏迈福利,瑞士巴拉格)和MTA Angelus(口腔解决方案公司,巴西隆德里纳)根尖封闭剂封闭根尖孔的效果。
使用120颗拔除的上颌切牙制作标准化的根尖敞开模型,并将其分为8组(n = 15)。ProRoot MTA和MTA Angelus分别采用手动或机械混合,然后通过手工加压或间接超声激活10秒来形成根尖封闭剂。使用micro-CT成像对样本进行扫描,并对牙本质壁与根尖封闭剂之间的空隙以及MTA内部的孔隙率进行体积分析。
无论使用何种混合和放置技术,MTA Angelus组牙本质壁与根尖封闭剂之间的空隙均大于ProRoot MTA组(P <.05)。机械混合组的孔隙率明显低于手动混合组(P <.05)。与手动混合和手工加压相比,机械混合与间接超声激活相结合使两种类型的MTA结构孔隙率更低(P <.05)。ProRoot MTA手动混合并放置时的边缘适应性大于MTA Angelus(P <.05),但进行间接超声激活时未发现差异(P >.05)。
ProRoot MTA的边缘适应性优于MTA Angelus。机械混合产品比手动混合产品具有更好的操作特性。间接超声激活确实改善了手动混合的MTA Angelus与牙本质壁的适应性。