Suppr超能文献

两种根管充填技术的比较:使用Guttacore载体系统进行根管充填与使用Guttaflow2流体牙胶进行根管充填。

Comparison of Two Root Canal Filling Techniques: Obturation with Guttacore Carrier Based System and Obturation with Guttaflow2 Fluid Gutta-Percha.

作者信息

Migliau Guido, Palaia Gaspare, Pergolini Daniele, Guglielmelli Tommaso, Fascetti Roberta, Sofan Afrah, Del Vecchio Alessandro, Romeo Umberto

机构信息

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy.

出版信息

Dent J (Basel). 2022 Apr 15;10(4):71. doi: 10.3390/dj10040071.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present study was to compare the quality of the root canal obturation obtained with two different techniques, i.e., thermoplastic gutta-percha introduced through a carrier (GuttaCore) and fluid gutta-percha (GuttaFlow2).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 40 permanent single-rooted human teeth, divided into two groups and obturated with Guttaflow (group G) and with GuttaCore (group T). The teeth were fixed and transversely sectioned, they were examined by scanning electron microscopy. The dentin-cement-gutta-percha interface and the percentage of voids produced by the two techniques were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

GuttaCore showed a better filling in the apical third of the canal with a percentage of voids equal to 5%. GuttaFlow showed a lower percentage of voids in the middle and coronal thirds of the canal, 1.6% of coronal voids. Statistical analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the percentage of voids in the two groups (GuttaCore and Guttaflow2) in each portion.

CONCLUSIONS

GuttaFlow2 seems to flow optimally in the middle and coronal third of the canal, with greater difficulty in filling the apical third. Due to the rigidity of the carrier, GuttaCore is able to reach better the most apical portions of the canals, with greater difficulty in creating the three-dimensional seal at the level of the middle third and coronal third.

摘要

引言

本研究的目的是比较两种不同技术获得的根管充填质量,即通过载体引入的热塑性牙胶(GuttaCore)和流体牙胶(GuttaFlow2)。

材料与方法

该研究包括40颗人类恒牙单根管牙齿,分为两组,分别用Guttaflow(G组)和GuttaCore(T组)进行充填。将牙齿固定并横切,通过扫描电子显微镜进行检查。对牙本质-牙胶尖界面以及两种技术产生的空隙百分比进行统计学分析。

结果

GuttaCore在根管根尖三分之一处显示出更好的充填效果,空隙百分比为5%。GuttaFlow在根管中三分之一和冠三分之一处显示出较低的空隙百分比,冠部空隙为1.6%。统计学分析表明,两组(GuttaCore和Guttaflow2)在每个部分的空隙百分比存在统计学显著差异。

结论

GuttaFlow2似乎在根管中三分之一和冠三分之一处流动最佳,充填根尖三分之一处难度较大。由于载体的刚性,GuttaCore能够更好地到达根管的最根尖部分,在中三分之一和冠三分之一水平创建三维密封的难度较大。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3c1a/9032128/06a8a4b1db46/dentistry-10-00071-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验