Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
J Endod. 2018 Jun;44(6):1018-1023. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.02.016. Epub 2018 Apr 18.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of calcium hydroxide (Ca[OH]) dressing on the dentinal tubule penetration of epoxy resin-based sealer (AH 26; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and tricalcium silicate-based sealer (BioRoot RCS; Septodont, Saint Maurdes Fosses, France).
Fifty-two single-rooted mandibular premolars were used. Four samples were assigned as the positive control. Twenty-four samples received Ca(OH) labeled with rhodamine B, whereas the rest did not. Ca(OH) was removed with passive ultrasonic activation and copious irrigation 2 weeks later. Samples were further subdivided into 2 groups, and root canal fillings were performed with a single ProTaper F4 gutta-percha cone (Dentsply Maillefer) combined with 1 of the tested sealers labeled with fluorescein green. After 2 weeks, samples were transversely sectioned at the apical, middle, and coronal levels. The penetration depth and percentage were evaluated via imaging software. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis, Siegel Castellan post hoc, and Mann-Whitney U tests at P = .05.
The mean dentinal tubule penetration depth and percentage values were lowest in the apical third for both sealers. BioRoot RCS showed higher penetrability in all thirds compared with AH 26 (P < .05) despite Ca(OH) dressing remnants (P < .05). Ca(OH) placement resulted in a shorter dentinal tubule penetration depth with BioRoot RCS statistically in the middle and coronal thirds (P < .05), whereas it did not affect the percentage (P > .05).
Passive ultrasonic activation and copious irrigation were insufficient in removing Ca(OH) from root canals. BioRoot RCS presented higher dentinal tubule penetration than AH 26 even in the presence of Ca(OH) residues. Ca(OH) remnants decreased both dentinal tubule penetration depth and the percentage of the tested sealers; however, a more drastic effect was observed for AH 26.
本研究旨在评估氢氧化钙(Ca[OH])敷料对环氧树脂基密封剂(AH 26;Dentsply Maillefer,Ballaigues,瑞士)和硅酸三钙基密封剂(BioRoot RCS;Septodont,Saint Maurdes Fosses,法国)的牙本质小管渗透的影响。
使用 52 颗下颌前磨牙。4 个样本被分配为阳性对照。24 个样本接受了用罗丹明 B 标记的 Ca(OH),而其余的则没有。2 周后,用被动超声激活和大量冲洗去除 Ca(OH)。样本进一步分为 2 组,用单个 ProTaper F4 牙胶尖(Dentsply Maillefer)和 1 种测试密封剂(用荧光绿标记)进行根管填充。2 周后,样本在根尖、中间和冠方水平进行横向切片。通过成像软件评估渗透深度和百分比。使用 Kruskal-Wallis、Siegel Castellan 事后检验和 Mann-Whitney U 检验进行统计分析,P =.05。
对于两种密封剂,根尖部的牙本质小管渗透深度和百分比值均最低。与 AH 26 相比,BioRoot RCS 在所有三个部位的渗透性都更高(P <.05),尽管存在 Ca(OH) 残留(P <.05)。Ca(OH)的放置导致 BioRoot RCS 的牙本质小管渗透深度在中间和冠方缩短,统计学上有显著差异(P <.05),而对百分比没有影响(P >.05)。
被动超声激活和大量冲洗不足以从根管中去除 Ca(OH)。即使存在 Ca(OH) 残留,BioRoot RCS 也比 AH 26 具有更高的牙本质小管渗透性。Ca(OH)残留降低了测试密封剂的牙本质小管渗透深度和百分比;然而,AH 26 观察到更明显的效果。