基于硅酸钙的封闭剂与基于树脂的封闭剂用于根管再治疗时封闭质量的比较
Comparison of Obturation Quality between Calcium Silicate-Based Sealers and Resin-Based Sealers for Endodontic Re-treatment.
作者信息
Jin Hye-Ryeon, Jang Young-Eun, Kim Yemi
机构信息
Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 07986, Korea.
出版信息
Materials (Basel). 2021 Dec 23;15(1):72. doi: 10.3390/ma15010072.
BACKGROUND
The objective of this micro-computed tomography (micro-CT)-based study was to compare the filling quality of endodontic treatment and endodontic Re-treatment between two sealers with matched obturation techniques: calcium silicate-based sealer (Endoseal TCS) with a single-cone technique (SCT) and resin-based sealer (AH Plus) with a continuous wave technique (CWT).
METHODS
Forty maxillary premolars were selected and assigned into four groups, according to the obturation methods of the first endodontic treatment and Re-treatment ( = 10). The AP/AP group was first treated with AH Plus/CWT, then re-treated with AH Plus/CWT. The AP/ET group was first treated with AH Plus/CWT, then re-treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT. The ET/AP group was first treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT, then re-treated with AH Plus/CWT, and the ET/ET group was first treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT, then re-treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT. The specimens were scanned using micro-CT at three time points: after the first endodontic treatment, after gutta-percha (GP) cone removal, and after Re-treatment. The void volume of root canal obturation and the volume of the remaining filling materials were calculated. Data were analyzed using Student's -tests and ANOVA.
RESULTS
The Endoseal TCS groups (ET/AP and ET/ET) showed a lower percentage of voids than the AH plus groups (AP/AP and AP/ET) on the whole canal and the apical third, after first obturation ( < 0.05). The AH plus group showed significantly fewer remnants than the Endoseal TCS group after GP removal ( < 0.05). Re-treated canals and initially treated canals had similar void volumes ( > 0.05). There was no significant difference in void volume after Re-treatment, regardless of whether the same or different sealers were used for the first treatment and Re-treatment ( < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Endoseal TCS sealer and AH Plus sealer had a similar Re-treatment efficacy, regardless of which sealer was used in the previous treatment.
背景
本基于微计算机断层扫描（micro-CT）的研究目的是比较两种具有匹配充填技术的封闭剂在根管治疗和根管再治疗中的充填质量：基于硅酸钙的封闭剂（Endoseal TCS）与单锥技术（SCT），以及基于树脂的封闭剂（AH Plus）与连续波技术（CWT）。
方法
选择40颗上颌前磨牙，根据首次根管治疗和再治疗的充填方法分为四组（每组n = 10）。AP/AP组首先用AH Plus/CWT治疗，然后用AH Plus/CWT再治疗。AP/ET组首先用AH Plus/CWT治疗，然后用Endoseal TCS/SCT再治疗。ET/AP组首先用Endoseal TCS/SCT治疗，然后用AH Plus/CWT再治疗，ET/ET组首先用Endoseal TCS/SCT治疗，然后用Endoseal TCS/SCT再治疗。在三个时间点使用微CT扫描标本：首次根管治疗后、去除牙胶尖（GP）后和再治疗后。计算根管充填的空隙体积和剩余充填材料的体积。使用学生t检验和方差分析进行数据分析。
结果
在首次充填后，Endoseal TCS组（ET/AP和ET/ET）在整个根管和根尖三分之一处的空隙百分比低于AH Plus组（AP/AP和AP/ET）（P < 0.05）。去除GP后，AH Plus组的残留物明显少于Endoseal TCS组（P < 0.05）。再治疗的根管和初次治疗的根管具有相似的空隙体积（P > 0.05）。无论首次治疗和再治疗使用相同还是不同的封闭剂，再治疗后的空隙体积均无显著差异（P < 0.05）。
结论
Endoseal TCS封闭剂和AH Plus封闭剂具有相似的再治疗效果，无论先前治疗中使用的是哪种封闭剂。
Zotero 插件