Suppr超能文献

具有模拟穿孔内吸收腔的牙齿的断裂阻力,用不同的硅酸钙基水泥和回填材料修复。

Fracture Resistance of Teeth with Simulated Perforating Internal Resorption Cavities Repaired with Different Calcium Silicate-based Cements and Backfilling Materials.

机构信息

Bülent Ecevit University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Zonguldak, Turkey.

Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

J Endod. 2018 May;44(5):860-863. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.01.019. Epub 2018 Mar 15.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the fracture resistance (FR) of teeth with simulated perforating internal resorption cavities repaired with different calcium silicate-based cements (CSCs) and backfilling materials.

METHODS

Ninety-six mandibular premolar teeth were used. Twelve of the teeth were assigned as negative control group. Remaining roots were instrumented with rotary files, and standardized internal resorption cavities were prepared on the middle half of roots with burs. Twelve of the samples were not further interfered and were assigned as a positive control group. The apical 4 mm of the remaining 72 root canals was obturated with single-cone technique and divided into 6 groups according to CSCs used for repairing of cavities and backfilling materials as follows: MTA + MTA, MTA + gutta-percha/sealer, Biodentine + Biodentine, Biodentine + gutta-percha/sealer, MTA Plus + MTA Plus, and MTA Plus + gutta-percha/sealer. Specimens were embedded in acrylic resin and then subjected to fracture testing. The forces when the fracture occurred were analyzed with analysis of variance and Bonferroni tests at P = .05.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found among CSCs irrespective of backfilling materials (P > .05). Groups MTA + gutta-percha/sealer, Biodentine + gutta-percha/sealer, and MTA Plus + gutta-percha/sealer showed significantly lower FR compared with groups MTA + MTA, Biodentine + Biodentine, and MTA Plus + MTA Plus, respectively (P < .05). The highest FR was observed in group Biodentine + Biodentine, and the lowest was in group MTA Plus + gutta-percha/sealer. FR of positive control group was statistically lower than groups completely filled with CSCs (P < .05), whereas FR of negative control group was statistically higher than the groups combined with gutta-percha and sealer (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The backfilling with CSCs may be a preferable material rather than gutta-percha/sealer combination for the roots with perforated internal resorptions.

摘要

简介

本研究评估了不同钙硅基水泥(CSCs)和回填材料修复模拟穿孔内吸收腔的牙齿的抗折强度(FR)。

方法

使用 96 颗下颌前磨牙。其中 12 颗牙被分配为阴性对照组。其余的根用旋转锉进行器械处理,并使用涡轮机在根的中间部分制备标准化的内吸收腔。其中 12 个样本不进行进一步干预,被分配为阳性对照组。其余 72 个根管的根尖 4mm 用单尖技术进行填塞,并根据用于修复空洞和回填材料的 CSCs 分为 6 组,如下所示:MTA+MTA、MTA+牙胶/封口剂、Biodentine+Biodentine、Biodentine+牙胶/封口剂、MTA Plus+MTA Plus 和 MTA Plus+牙胶/封口剂。标本用丙烯酸树脂包埋,然后进行断裂试验。用方差分析和 Bonferroni 检验在 P=0.05 时分析断裂时的力。

结果

无论回填材料如何,CSCs 之间均无显著差异(P>.05)。与 MTA+MTA、Biodentine+Biodentine 和 MTA Plus+MTA Plus 组相比,MTA+牙胶/封口剂、Biodentine+牙胶/封口剂和 MTA Plus+牙胶/封口剂组的 FR 明显较低(P<.05)。Biodentine+Biodentine 组的 FR 最高,MTA Plus+牙胶/封口剂组的 FR 最低。阳性对照组的 FR 明显低于完全用 CSCs 填充的组(P<.05),而阴性对照组的 FR 明显高于与牙胶和封口剂结合的组(P<.05)。

结论

对于穿孔内吸收的根,用 CSCs 回填可能比牙胶/封口剂组合更可取。

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