Suppr超能文献

不同冲洗激活系统对根管清洁效果的 SEM 评估

Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: a SEM evaluation.

机构信息

Department of Operative Dentistry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Central Interdisciplinary Ambulance in the School of Dentistry, University of Münster, Waldeyerstr. 30, 48149, Münster, Germany.

出版信息

Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Dec;21(9):2681-2687. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2070-x. Epub 2017 Feb 9.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of different final irrigation activation methods in removing debris and smear layer in the apical, middle, and coronal portion of straight root canals.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Straight root canals of 58 freshly extracted mandibular premolars were used. Root canals were prepared to size 40.06. Irrigation was performed using 3% sodium hypochlorite. Samples were divided into four equal groups (n = 12) according to the irrigation activation techniques: (A) manual irrigation (MI), (B) EndoActivator (EA) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), (C) sonic activation EDDY (EDDY; VDW, Munich, Germany), and (D) passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI). Ten teeth served as negative controls. Roots were split longitudinally, and the canal walls were subjected to scanning electron microscopy. The presence of debris and smear layer at coronal, middle, and apical levels were evaluated using a 5-point scoring system and statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Canal cleanliness decreased from coronal to apical (P = 0.035). Significantly more debris was removed with EA, EDDY, and PUI compared to MI (P < 0.001; total values), but no differences were observed in the different portions of the root canals (P > 0.05). Smear layer removal with PUI, EA, and EDDY was not significantly different (P > 0.05), but only EDDY and PUI were superior to MI (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

All activation methods created nearly debris-free canal walls and were superior compared to manual irrigation (P < 0.001). EDDY and PUI also showed significantly better smear layer scores compared to manual irrigation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The sonic activation system EDDY performed equally as well as PUI, and both methods were significantly superior compared with manual irrigation in straight root canals with regard to debris and smear layer removal.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估不同的最终冲洗激活方法在去除直根管根尖、中部和冠部的碎屑和玷污层方面的效果。

材料和方法

使用 58 颗新鲜下颌前磨牙的直根管。根管预备至 40.06 号。使用 3%次氯酸钠进行冲洗。根据冲洗激活技术将样本分为四组(n=12):(A)手动冲洗(MI),(B)EndoActivator(EA)(Dentsply Maillefer,Ballaigues,瑞士),(C)超声激活 EDDY(EDDY;VDW,慕尼黑,德国)和(D)被动超声冲洗(PUI)。十颗牙齿作为阴性对照。将根部分为纵向,并用扫描电子显微镜观察根管壁。使用 5 分制评分系统评估冠、中、根尖水平的碎屑和玷污层的存在,并使用 Kruskal-Wallis 和卡方检验进行统计学分析。

结果

从冠部到根尖,根管清洁度降低(P=0.035)。与 MI 相比,EA、EDDY 和 PUI 去除的碎屑明显更多(P<0.001;总评分),但在根管的不同部位之间没有差异(P>0.05)。与 MI 相比,PUI、EA 和 EDDY 去除的玷污层没有显著差异(P>0.05),但只有 EDDY 和 PUI 优于 MI(P<0.01)。

结论

所有激活方法都使根管壁几乎无碎屑,并优于手动冲洗(P<0.001)。与手动冲洗相比,EDDY 和 PUI 也显示出明显更好的玷污层评分。

临床意义

超声激活系统 EDDY 的性能与 PUI 相当,在直根管中,与手动冲洗相比,这两种方法在去除碎屑和玷污层方面都有显著优势。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验