Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, İzmir Katip Celebi University, İzmir, Turkey.
Private Practice, Istanbul, Turkey.
J Endod. 2017 Sep;43(9):1559-1564. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.04.029. Epub 2017 Jul 27.
The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of different root canal filling methods on the C1 root canal anatomy using 3-dimensional (3D) printer technology.
Mandibular molars were scanned with cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) imaging. A mandibular molar tooth with a C1 root canal configuration was selected according to images obtained from CBCT technology. The root canals were shaped with ProTaper Universal rotary instruments (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and hand files. After the root canal shaping procedure, the tooth was scanned with micro-computed tomographic imaging, and 80 replicas of the tooth were produced with a 3D printer. Replicas were assigned into 4 groups (n = 20) and were filled using one of the following techniques: a core carrier system (GuttaCore [GC]; Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK), a continuous wave obturation system (Elements Free [CW]; Kerr/SybronEndo, Orange, CA), a cold lateral compaction technique (CLC), or the injectable cold filling method (GuttaFlow Bioseal [GFB]; Coltène/Whaledent AG, Altstatten, Switzerland). All specimens were sectioned horizontally at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm from the apices of the specimens. The sections were examined at 32× magnification under a stereomicroscope, and the percentage areas of gutta-percha, sealer, and voids were measured. Statistical analysis of data was performed using multivariate analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests (P < .05).
The CW group had the highest mean percentages for void and the least mean percentages for gutta-percha at 2-mm sections (P < .05). A pairwise comparison between the groups showed significantly less void in the CLC and GFB groups and more void in the CW and GC groups at 2 mm (P < .05). In the total area, the CLC and GFB groups showed a significantly lower percentage of gutta-percha and more sealer compared with the other groups (P < .05), and there was no significant difference between the CLC and GFB groups (P > .05).
At the apical part of the canal, the cold lateral compaction and cold injectable filling techniques were more successful compared with the warm gutta-percha filling techniques in C1 root canal configuration.
本研究旨在使用三维（3D）打印机技术比较不同根管填充方法对 C1 根管解剖结构的影响。
使用锥形束 CT（CBCT）对下颌磨牙进行扫描。根据 CBCT 技术获得的图像，选择具有 C1 根管形态的下颌磨牙。使用 ProTaper Universal 旋转器械（Dentsply Maillefer，Ballaigues，瑞士）和手动锉对根管进行塑形。根管成形后，用微 CT 成像对牙齿进行扫描，并使用 3D 打印机制作 80 个牙齿复制品。将复制品分为 4 组（n=20），分别采用以下技术之一进行填充：核心载体系统（GuttaCore[GC]；Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties，Tulsa，OK）、连续波封闭系统（Elements Free[CW]； Kerr/SybronEndo，Orange，CA）、冷侧压技术（CLC）或冷注射填充法（GuttaFlow Bioseal[GFB]；Coltène/Whaledent AG，Altstatten，瑞士）。所有样本均从样本根尖处向上 2、4、6、8 和 10mm 处水平切片。在 32×放大倍数下用立体显微镜检查切片，并测量牙胶、封闭剂和空隙的百分比面积。使用多元方差分析和 Tukey 显著差异检验（P<0.05）对数据进行统计学分析。
CW 组在 2mm 切片时，空隙的平均百分比最高，牙胶的平均百分比最低（P<0.05）。组间两两比较显示，在 2mm 时，CLC 和 GFB 组的空隙明显减少，CW 和 GC 组的空隙明显增加（P<0.05）。在总面积上，CLC 和 GFB 组的牙胶百分比明显较低，而封闭剂百分比明显较高，与其他组相比（P<0.05），而 CLC 和 GFB 组之间没有显著差异（P>0.05）。
在根管的根尖部分，冷侧压和冷注射填充技术比温热牙胶填充技术在 C1 根管形态中更成功。
