Song Minju, Park Min-Gyu, Kwak Sang-Won, Kim Ruben H, Ha Jung-Hong, Kim Hyeon-Cheol
Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea.
Materials (Basel). 2022 Jul 25;15(15):5146. doi: 10.3390/ma15155146.
The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to assess the short-term clinical effectiveness of sealer-based root canal obturation using calcium-silicate-based sealer (CSBS) and epoxy-resin-based sealer (ERBS). A total of eighty patients (eighty teeth) were enrolled and seventy-two patients (seventy-two teeth) were randomly assigned into four different sealer groups: AH Plus (AH, Dentsply Sirona), ADseal (AD, Meta Biomed), CeraSeal (CS, Meta Biomed), or EndoSeal TCS (ES, Maruchi). At the first visit, root canal treatment was performed using ProTaper. Next, the NiTi file system and passive ultrasonic irritation was applied with 2.5% NaOCl. At the second visit, the teeth were obturated with a sealer-based obturation technique using the assigned sealer. The quality of filling obturation was evaluated with postoperative radiographs in terms of the presence of voids and sealer extrusion. The patients were recalled at 1-week, 1-month, and 3-month intervals, and pain levels were measured using visual analog scales (VAS), and clinical examination performed with percussion and palpation. Radiographs were also taken. The results were statistically compared by using the χ2 test or Fisher exact test. Among the 80 teeth included, 72 teeth received allocated intervention and 71 teeth were included in the analysis (98.6% recall). There was no significant difference among the sealers in void and sealer extrusion (p > 0.05). Postoperative pain was not indicated prominently regardless of the type of sealer. For a 3-month follow-up period, all cases were maintained successfully except for one case from AD. According to the findings, there was no significant difference between CSBS and ERBS in terms of postoperative pain or the healing process, and the variation in filling quality appears to be linked to the properties of each product.
这项随机对照临床试验的目的是评估使用基于硅酸钙的封闭剂（CSBS）和基于环氧树脂的封闭剂（ERBS）进行基于封闭剂的根管充填的短期临床效果。总共招募了80名患者（80颗牙齿），72名患者（72颗牙齿）被随机分为四个不同的封闭剂组：AH Plus（AH，登士柏西诺德）、ADseal（AD，美塔生物医学）、CeraSeal（CS，美塔生物医学）或EndoSeal TCS（ES，马鲁奇）。在第一次就诊时，使用ProTaper进行根管治疗。接下来，使用2.5%的次氯酸钠应用镍钛锉系统和被动超声冲洗。在第二次就诊时，使用指定的封闭剂通过基于封闭剂的充填技术对牙齿进行充填。根据术后X线片上是否存在空隙和封闭剂挤出情况评估充填质量。在1周、1个月和3个月的间隔时间召回患者，使用视觉模拟量表（VAS）测量疼痛程度，并通过叩诊和触诊进行临床检查。还拍摄了X线片。使用χ2检验或Fisher精确检验对结果进行统计学比较。在纳入的80颗牙齿中，72颗牙齿接受了分配的干预，71颗牙齿纳入分析（召回率98.6%）。封闭剂在空隙和封闭剂挤出方面没有显著差异（p>0.05）。无论封闭剂类型如何，术后疼痛均未显著出现。在3个月的随访期内，除了AD组的1例病例外，所有病例均成功维持。根据研究结果，CSBS和ERBS在术后疼痛或愈合过程方面没有显著差异，充填质量的差异似乎与每种产品的特性有关。
