Suppr超能文献

三种最终冲洗激活技术的比较:对两种根管封闭剂的根管清洁度、玷污层去除及牙本质小管渗透的影响

Comparison of Three Final Irrigation Activation Techniques: Effects on Canal Cleanness, Smear Layer Removal, and Dentinal Tubule Penetration of Two Root Canal Sealers.

作者信息

Turkel Elmas, Onay Emel Olga, Ungor Mete

机构信息

1 Turkish Ministry of Health, Edirne Dental Hospital , Edirne, Turkey .

2 Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Baskent University , Bahcelievler-Ankara, Turkey .

出版信息

Photomed Laser Surg. 2017 Dec;35(12):672-681. doi: 10.1089/pho.2016.4234. Epub 2017 Feb 22.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare three final irrigation activation techniques with respect to their effects on debridement efficacy, smear layer removal, and dentinal tubule penetration of two different root canal sealers.

BACKGROUND DATA

Different applications to improve the delivery of irrigating solutions within the root canal system are currently being investigated, as not all of the mechanisms and effects of these techniques have been clearly identified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred forty-two single-rooted teeth were randomly divided into a control group and three experimental groups based on the irrigant activation technique used: EndoVac (EV) system, photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS), and conventional syringe irrigation (CSI). Thirteen specimens from each experimental group were evaluated for debris and smear layer removal using scanning electron microscopy. The remaining 30 specimens per group were divided into two subgroups according to the root canal sealer used: AH Plus and TotalFill BC. The maximum depth and total percentage of sealer penetration were measured using confocal laser scanning microscopy.

RESULTS

PIPS resulted in significantly less debris in the middle third of the root canal compared with CSI (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences among CSI, EV, and PIPS concerning debris removal at coronal and apical levels or smear layer removal at all levels (p > 0.05). TotalFill BC use after final irrigation with EV and CSI at 2 mm or PIPS at 5 mm exhibited a significantly higher percentage of sealer penetration than that with AH Plus (p < 0.05). When AH Plus was used, PIPS allowed deeper sealer penetration than CSI at 2 mm (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of EV, PIPS, and CSI on debridement efficacy, smear layer removal, and dentinal tubule penetration were almost comparable. TotalFill BC showed superior tubular penetration than AH Plus.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较三种最终冲洗激活技术对两种不同根管封闭剂的清创效果、玷污层去除及牙本质小管渗透的影响。

背景资料

目前正在研究不同的应用方法以改善根管系统内冲洗液的输送,因为这些技术的所有机制和效果尚未完全明确。

材料与方法

142颗单根管牙根据所使用的冲洗液激活技术随机分为对照组和三个实验组:EndoVac(EV)系统、光致光声流(PIPS)和传统注射器冲洗(CSI)。使用扫描电子显微镜对每个实验组的13个样本进行碎屑和玷污层去除评估。每组剩余的30个样本根据所使用的根管封闭剂分为两个亚组:AH Plus和TotalFill BC。使用共聚焦激光扫描显微镜测量封闭剂渗透的最大深度和总百分比。

结果

与CSI相比,PIPS导致根管中1/3的碎屑明显减少(p < 0.01)。在冠部和根尖部的碎屑去除或所有部位的玷污层去除方面,CSI、EV和PIPS之间没有显著差异(p > 0.05)。在最终冲洗后,使用EV和CSI在2 mm处或PIPS在5 mm处冲洗后再使用TotalFill BC,其封闭剂渗透百分比显著高于使用AH Plus(p < 0.05)。当使用AH Plus时,PIPS在2 mm处允许封闭剂的渗透比CSI更深(p < 0.05)。

结论

EV、PIPS和CSI对清创效果、玷污层去除及牙本质小管渗透的影响几乎相当。TotalFill BC显示出比AH Plus更好的小管渗透性能。

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