Kumar Santosh, Desai Kavisha, Palekar Aparna, Biradar Baswaraj, Chatterjee Ananjan, Kumari Khushboo
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Patna Dental College & Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India.
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rural Dental College, Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Loni, Maharashtra, India.
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2020 Aug 6;10(4):424-430. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_13_20. eCollection 2020 Jul-Aug.
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of CanalBrush (CB), EndoActivator (EA), and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI) on the removal of triple antibiotic paste (TAP) from root canal walls.
Thirty-six extracted human single-rooted teeth were prepared using ProTaper Universal rotary files (DentsplyMaillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) up to size F5. The root canals were filled with TAP, and after 21 days, roots were randomly assigned to three groups ( = 10) according to irrigation regimens used: CB, EA, and PUI. In three teeth, TAP was not removed (positive controls), and the other three teeth were not filled with TAP (negative controls). The roots were sectioned, and the amount of TAP remaining was evaluated at the mesial halves of each tooth at ×30 magnification under a stereomicroscope using a 4-grade scoring system. Data were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.
There were significant differences among the experimental groups according to the different parts of the root canals ( < 0.05). At the apical and middle third, EA and PUI groups removed more TAP than CB group; however, there was a statistically significant difference only between CB and PUI groups (<0.01 at apical third and <0.05 at middle third). At the coronal third, there was no statistically significant difference between all the three groups ( > 0.05).
PUI led to superior results compared to CB in the middle and apical thirds. There was no significant difference between EA and PUI techniques.
本研究旨在比较根管刷（CB）、根管激活器（EA）和被动超声冲洗（PUI）去除根管壁上三联抗生素糊剂（TAP）的效果。
使用ProTaper通用旋转锉（瑞士登士柏玛尼费公司，巴拉格）将36颗拔除的人单根牙预备至F5号。根管内充填TAP，21天后，根据所采用的冲洗方案将牙根随机分为三组（每组n = 10）：CB组、EA组和PUI组。另有三颗牙未去除TAP（阳性对照），另外三颗牙未充填TAP（阴性对照）。将牙根进行切片，在体视显微镜下以×30倍放大率，使用4级评分系统评估每颗牙近中半部分残留的TAP量。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和Mann-Whitney检验对数据进行评估。
根据根管不同部位，各实验组之间存在显著差异（P < 0.05）。在根尖和中三分之一处，EA组和PUI组比CB组去除的TAP更多；然而，仅CB组和PUI组之间存在统计学显著差异（根尖三分之一处P < 0.01，中三分之一处P < 0.05）。在冠三分之一处，三组之间无统计学显著差异（P > 0.05）。
在中三分之一和根尖三分之一处，PUI的效果优于CB。EA技术和PUI技术之间无显著差异。
