Department of Dentistry - Endodontics Division, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Campus João David Ferreira Lima, Trindade, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, 88040-900, Brazil.
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jul;22(6):2353-2361. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2336-y. Epub 2018 Jan 17.
To compare the accuracy of confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) during the analysis of the adhesive interface integrity and intratubular penetration of root canal sealers to radicular dentine.
Twenty roots of human maxillary incisors were prepared and distributed into two groups (n = 10), followed by filling with gutta-percha and Endofill (G1) or AH Plus (G2). After 7 days, roots were sectioned and analyzed under CLSM and SEM. Score systems were used to evaluate the adhesive interface integrity (0-4) and sealer intratubular penetration (0-3). Data were submitted to Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and Kendall correlation statistical tests (α = 5%).
In the adhesive interface analysis, CLSM was similar (P = 0.157) to SEM for Endofill; however, the results were different for AH Plus (P = 0.029). Intratubular penetration had significant difference between observational methods for both sealers (P < 0.0001). Correlation analysis between SEM and CLSM for adhesive interface was moderate for Endofill and low for AH Plus. Intratubular penetration was low for both sealers.
SEM and CLSM analysis had similar results when sealers were compared, with a more homogeneous adhesive interface, and greater intratubular penetration for AH Plus. Comparison between observational methods demonstrated low positive correlation for adhesive interface and intratubular penetration analysis.
A proper interface formed between sealer and dentine is very important for final quality of root canal filling. Observational methods which allow an accurate analysis of this interface must be selected to assess such features.
比较共聚焦激光扫描显微镜（CLSM）和扫描电子显微镜（SEM）在分析根管封闭剂与根管牙本质的黏附界面完整性和管内渗透性的准确性。
20 颗上颌中切牙的牙根被制备并分为两组（n=10），分别用牙胶和 Endofill（G1）或 AH Plus（G2）进行填充。7 天后，对牙根进行 CLSM 和 SEM 分析。使用评分系统评估黏附界面完整性（0-4 分）和封闭剂管内渗透性（0-3 分）。数据采用 Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney 和 Kendall 相关统计检验（α=5%）。
在黏附界面分析中，CLSM 与 Endofill 的 SEM 结果相似（P=0.157），但与 AH Plus 的结果不同（P=0.029）。两种封闭剂的管内渗透性在观察方法之间有显著差异（P<0.0001）。SEM 和 CLSM 对 Endofill 的黏附界面相关性为中度，对 AH Plus 的相关性为低度。两种封闭剂的管内渗透性均较低。
当比较不同的封闭剂时，SEM 和 CLSM 分析结果相似，具有更均匀的黏附界面和更大的 AH Plus 管内渗透性。观察方法之间的比较表明，黏附界面和管内渗透性分析的相关性较低。
封闭剂与牙本质之间形成适当的界面对于根管填充的最终质量非常重要。必须选择能够准确分析该界面的观察方法来评估这些特征。
