Suppr超能文献

使用手动锉、RaCe和RaCe plus XP-Endo Finisher器械去除牙胶后根管壁的清洁度:一项摄影分析。

Cleanliness of Canal Walls following Gutta-Percha Removal with Hand Files, RaCe and RaCe plus XP-Endo Finisher Instruments: A Photographic Analysis.

作者信息

Karamifar Kasra, Mehrasa Neda, Pardis Pouyan, Saghiri Mohammad Ali

机构信息

Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz Branch, Shiraz, Iran.

Wisconsin Institute for Medical Research, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.

出版信息

Iran Endod J. 2017 Spring;12(2):242-247. doi: 10.22037/iej.2017.47.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Gutta-percha must be removed from the root canal space during retreatment to ensure a more favorable outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of hand instruments, RaCe and RaCe plus XP-endo finisher instruments in removal of gutta-percha from root canal walls during retreatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Thirty single-rooted premolars were prepared, obturated, and divided into three groups according to retreatment method; in group 1, retreatment was carried out by hand instruments, while in groups 2 and 3 retreatment was done using RaCe rotary files alone or accompanied by XP-endo finisher instruments, respectively. After retreatment, teeth were sectioned longitudinally and photographic images were taken. The amount of remaining gutta-percha in coronal, middle and apical thirds was quantified using Image J software. The two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's tests were used to analyze data. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

RaCe cleaned the apical third significantly better than hand instrumentation. In the coronal third, RaCe+XP-endo finisher was more effective than RaCe. RaCe+XP-endo finisher was more effective than hand instrumentation in the entire root canal. The amount of remaining gutta-percha was the least in the apical part and increased toward the coronal part with the use of XP-endo finisher (<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Rotary instrumentation was more effective in removing gutta-percha from the canal walls. Furthermore, use of XP-endo finisher file resulted in cleaner canal walls and was more effective in removing gutta-percha from the coronal toward the apical part of the canal.

摘要

引言

在根管再治疗过程中,必须从根管空间中去除牙胶,以确保获得更理想的治疗效果。本研究的目的是比较手动器械、RaCe器械和RaCe加XP-endo修整器器械在根管再治疗过程中从根管壁上去除牙胶的效果。

方法与材料

制备30颗单根前磨牙,进行根管充填,然后根据再治疗方法分为三组;第1组使用手动器械进行再治疗,而第2组和第3组分别单独使用RaCe旋转锉或联合使用XP-endo修整器器械进行再治疗。再治疗后,将牙齿纵向切开并拍摄照片。使用Image J软件对冠部、中部和根尖三分之一处剩余牙胶的量进行量化。采用双向方差分析和事后Tukey检验分析数据。显著性水平设定为0.05。

结果

RaCe在清洁根尖三分之一处明显优于手动器械。在冠部三分之一处,RaCe+XP-endo修整器比RaCe更有效。在整个根管中,RaCe+XP-endo修整器比手动器械更有效。使用XP-endo修整器时,根尖部剩余牙胶的量最少,且从冠部向根尖部逐渐增加(<0.05)。

结论

旋转器械在从根管壁上去除牙胶方面更有效。此外,使用XP-endo修整锉可使根管壁更清洁,并且在从根管冠部向根尖部去除牙胶方面更有效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/140f/5431710/8b0390b2ba01/iej-12-242-g001.jpg

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