Marques Renata Pereira de Samuel, Moura-Netto Cacio, Oliveira Natalia Matsuda de, Bresolin Carmela Rampazzo, Mello-Moura Anna Carolina Volpi, Mendes Fausto Medeiros, Novaes Tatiane Fernandes
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Faculty of Dental Medicine, Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Health, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Viseu, Portugal.
Braz Oral Res. 2020;34:e089. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0089. Epub 2020 Aug 7.
In this study, we evaluated the physicochemical properties (PCP; radiopacity, flow, pH, and solubility) and the quality of root canal filling provided by an experimental industrialized paste (EP), with the same active ingredients as those of the Guedes Pinto paste, compared with the Vitapex® paste. PCP were analyzed according to the ANSI/ADA laboratory testing methods for endodontic filling and sealing materials. To analyze filling capacity, 120 artificial primary teeth (60 maxillary incisors [MIs] and 60 mandibulary molars [MMs]) were endodontically treated. The teeth were divided into eight groups based on the dental group (MIs or MMs), filling material (Vitapex® or EP), and insertion method (syringe or lentulo). The Image J® software was used to analyze the initial an final digital radiographies of each tooth, measuring and comparing root canal and void areas. The percentage of filling failure areas was obtained. Data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey test of mean comparison. Regarding PCP, both pastes presented results according the ANSI/ADA standards. Flow capacity: Vitapex: 19.6 mm, EP: 25 mm (p < 0.01); radiopacity: Vitapex: 4.47 mmAl, EP: 6.06 mmAl (p < 0.01); pH after 28 days: Vitapex: 7.79, EP: 8.19 (p = 0.12); and solubility after 28 days: Vitapex: 2.68%, EP: 2.89% (p > 0.05). Regarding filling capacity analysis, EP demonstrated 12.5% of failure against 31.5% of Vitapex (p < 0.01). Compared to Vitapex, EP presented statistically significantly better results in flow, radiopacity, pH, and filling capacity. Molars presented more filling failures than incisors. The insertion method using a syringe and a thin tip was significantly better than that using Lentulo spiral carriers.
在本研究中，我们评估了一种实验性工业化糊剂（EP）的物理化学性质（PCP；射线不透性、流动性、pH值和溶解性）以及根管充填质量，该糊剂与Guedes Pinto糊剂具有相同的活性成分，并与Vitapex®糊剂进行了比较。根据美国国家标准学会/美国牙科协会（ANSI/ADA）牙髓充填和封闭材料的实验室测试方法对PCP进行分析。为了分析充填能力，对120颗人工乳牙（60颗上颌切牙[MIs]和60颗下颌磨牙[MMs]）进行了牙髓治疗。根据牙组（MIs或MMs）、充填材料（Vitapex®或EP）和插入方法（注射器或螺旋输送器）将牙齿分为八组。使用Image J®软件分析每颗牙齿的初始和最终数字射线照片，测量并比较根管和空洞面积。得出充填失败区域的百分比。数据提交给方差分析（ANOVA）和均值比较的Tukey检验。关于PCP，两种糊剂的结果均符合ANSI/ADA标准。流动能力：Vitapex：19.6毫米，EP：25毫米（p<0.01）；射线不透性：Vitapex：4.47毫米铝当量，EP：6.06毫米铝当量（p<0.01）；28天后的pH值：Vitapex：7.79，EP：8.19（p = 0.12）；28天后的溶解性：Vitapex：2.68%，EP：2.89%（p>0.05）。关于充填能力分析，EP的失败率为12.5%，而Vitapex为31.5%（p<0.01）。与Vitapex相比，EP在流动性、射线不透性、pH值和充填能力方面的结果在统计学上显著更好。磨牙的充填失败比切牙更多。使用注射器和细尖端的插入方法明显优于使用螺旋输送器的方法。
