Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
J Endod. 2018 Jul;44(7):1173-1178. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.04.007. Epub 2018 Jun 1.
This study used a multipurpose analytic approach to compare the levels of apically extruded bacterial and hard tissue debris as well as intracanal bacterial reduction after root canal preparation with either XP-endo Shaper (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) or Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) instruments.
Distobuccal canals from extracted maxillary molars were contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis and randomly distributed into 2 groups according to the instrumentation system: the XP-endo Shaper or Reciproc. Teeth were mounted in an apparatus that simulates the apical resistance offered by the periapical tissues and permitted to collect debris extruded during preparation. Saline was used as the irrigant during preparation, and all treatment procedures were performed inside a cabinet under a controlled temperature of 37°C. DNA extracts from samples taken from the canal before and after preparation were subjected to quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction for E. faecalis counting. The volume of extruded debris was evaluated by micro-computed tomographic imaging. DNA was extracted from the extruded hard tissue debris and analyzed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction.
Mechanical intracanal bacterial reduction was significantly more pronounced when using the XP-endo Shaper (P < .001). Although both instruments produced a similar volume of extruded debris (P > .05), extruded bacteria counts were significantly lower with Reciproc than the XP-endo Shaper (P < .001). No correlation was observed between the extruded bacterial counts and debris volume.
Although bacterial extrusion was lower with Reciproc, the intracanal bacterial reduction was higher with the XP-endo Shaper. Both techniques produced a similar volume of hard tissue debris extrusion.
本研究采用多用途分析方法比较了 XP-endo Shaper（FKG Dentaire，瑞士拉绍德封）和 Reciproc（VDW，德国慕尼黑）两种器械预备根管后根尖挤出的细菌和硬组织碎屑水平以及根管内细菌减少量。
从离体上颌磨牙的远颊根管中污染粪肠球菌，并根据器械系统将其随机分为 2 组：XP-endo Shaper 或 Reciproc。牙齿安装在模拟根尖组织提供的根尖阻力的装置中，并允许在预备过程中挤出碎屑。在预备过程中使用生理盐水作为冲洗液，所有治疗程序均在 37°C 受控温度下的机柜内进行。从预备前后从根管中取样的 DNA 提取物进行粪肠球菌计数的实时定量聚合酶链反应。通过微计算机断层扫描成像评估挤出碎屑的体积。从挤出的硬组织碎屑中提取 DNA，并通过实时定量聚合酶链反应进行分析。
使用 XP-endo Shaper 时，机械根管内细菌减少明显更为明显（P<.001）。尽管两种器械产生的挤出碎屑量相似（P>.05），但与 XP-endo Shaper 相比，Reciproc 挤出的细菌计数明显更低（P<.001）。挤出的细菌计数与碎屑体积之间没有相关性。
虽然 Reciproc 的细菌挤出率较低，但 XP-endo Shaper 的根管内细菌减少率较高。两种技术都产生了相似体积的硬组织碎屑挤出。
