Shalan Linz A, Al-Huwaizi Hussain F
Department of Conservative and Esthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq.
Iran Endod J. 2018 Winter;13(1):102-107. doi: 10.22037/iej.v13i1.17285.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of pressurized water irrigation technique (AquaPick Device) as an intra-canal irrigation technique and compare it with sonic irrigation device (Endoactivator) for their ability to remove smear layer from canals.
Total number of 80 single rooted teeth (premolars) were prepared, divided into eight main groups, Group 1: Aquapick with apically vented needle/18 mm depth, Group 2: Aquapick with apically vented needle/15 mm depth, Group 3: Endoactivator device/18 mm depth, Group 4: Endoactivator device/15 mm depth, Group5: Aquapick with 2 side vented needle/18 mm depth, Group 6: Aquapick with 2 side vented needle/15 mm depth and two control groups. Then all samples were tested by SEM in 3, 6 and 9-mm distances from the apical foramen. The data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.
There was a high significant difference among the tested groups with the best removal of smear layer by the use of pressurized water irrigation device with apical vented needle especially at the 3 mm area
Pressurized water irrigation technique could be used as intra-canal irrigation technique with good results.
本研究的目的是评估加压水冲洗技术（AquaPick 装置）作为一种根管内冲洗技术的能力，并将其与声波冲洗装置（Endoactivator）去除根管内玷污层的能力进行比较。
准备了总共80颗单根牙（前磨牙），分为八个主要组，第1组：带根尖排气针的 AquaPick/18毫米深度，第2组：带根尖排气针的 AquaPick/15毫米深度，第3组：Endoactivator 装置/18毫米深度，第4组：Endoactivator 装置/15毫米深度，第5组：带2个侧方排气针的 AquaPick/18毫米深度，第6组：带2个侧方排气针的 AquaPick/15毫米深度，以及两个对照组。然后在距根尖孔3、6和9毫米处通过扫描电子显微镜对所有样本进行测试。使用 Kruskal Wallis 检验和 Mann-Whitney U 检验对数据进行统计学分析。
测试组之间存在高度显著差异，使用带根尖排气针的加压水冲洗装置去除玷污层的效果最佳，尤其是在3毫米区域。
加压水冲洗技术可作为根管内冲洗技术使用，效果良好。
