Division of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Sensengasse 2a, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Donaueschingenstraße 13, 1200, Vienna, Austria.
Lasers Med Sci. 2020 Apr;35(3):719-728. doi: 10.1007/s10103-019-02912-3. Epub 2019 Nov 28.
The aim was to validate an artificial resin 'root canal wall groove model' (RCWGM) mimicking the situation of natural roots with a groove of identical dimensions on debris removal out of these grooves, and to evaluate Erbium 'laser-activated irrigation' (LAI) with two conical tips at PIPS (photon-induced photoacoustic streaming) settings, with different activation times and different root canal positions on debris removal out of the grooves. A split RCWGM was used (resin blocks and roots of maxillary canines) with a canal size 40/0.06. The grooves in the apical third were filled with stained dentinal debris. Seventeen irrigation protocols (n = 20) were used: syringe-needle irrigation (3× 20 s), manual dynamic activation (1× 60 s), ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) with 25/25 Irrisafe (3× 20 s) and LAI (2940 nm Er:YAG) with X-Pulse or PIPS tips at PIPS settings (20 mJ, 50 μs, 20 Hz) and with the fibre (IN) or (OUT) the canal: IN during 1× 20 s, and OUT during 1× 20 s, 2× 20 s, 3× 20 s, 30 s, 2× 30 s and 1× 60 s. The quantity of remaining dentine debris in the groove was evaluated on a numerical scale. Statistical analysis was performed by means of proportional odds logistic regression, equivalence testing and Wald tests. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Resin models and the RCWGM with natural teeth can be called equivalent (log odds ratio 0.185). There were mostly no statistically significant differences for debris removal between UAI and LAI (p > 0.05) and between LAI with PIPS and X-Pulse (p > 0.05). Although not statistically different, the numbers of completely cleaned grooves were higher with LAI than with UAI for a 1-min activation, confirming findings from other studies. There is no difference in cleaning efficacy between X-Pulse and PIPS tips at PIPS settings.
目的是验证一种人工树脂“根管壁凹槽模型”(RCWGM),该模型模拟了天然根管的情况,在这些凹槽中去除碎屑时,其具有相同尺寸的凹槽,并用两种锥形尖端的铒“激光激活冲洗”(LAI)在 PIPS(光激发光声流)设置下,用不同的激活时间和不同的根管位置从凹槽中去除碎屑,进行评估。使用分体 RCWGM(上颌犬齿的树脂块和根),根管尺寸为 40/0.06。根尖三分之一的凹槽填充有染色牙本质碎屑。使用了 17 种冲洗方案(n = 20):注射器-针头冲洗(3×20 s)、手动动态激活(1×60 s)、超声激活冲洗(UAI),用 25/25 Irrisafe(3×20 s)和 LAI(2940nm Er:YAG)用 X-Pulse 或 PIPS 尖端在 PIPS 设置(20 mJ,50 μs,20 Hz)和纤维(IN)或(OUT)根管:IN 在 1×20 s 期间,OUT 在 1×20 s、2×20 s、3×20 s、30 s、2×30 s 和 1×60 s 期间。在数字量表上评估凹槽中剩余牙本质碎屑的数量。通过比例优势逻辑回归、等效性检验和 Wald 检验进行统计分析。显著性水平设定为 0.05。树脂模型和带有天然牙齿的 RCWGM 可以称为等效(对数优势比为 0.185)。UAI 和 LAI 之间(p > 0.05)和 LAI 与 PIPS 和 X-Pulse 之间(p > 0.05)在去除碎屑方面,大多数情况下没有统计学上的显著差异。虽然没有统计学差异,但与 UAI 相比,LAI 进行 1 分钟激活时,完全清洁的凹槽数量更高,这与其他研究的结果一致。在 PIPS 设置下,X-Pulse 和 PIPS 尖端的清洁效果没有差异。