D Geo T, Gupta Saurabh, Rana Kuldeep Singh, Kulkarni Anisha, Jadhaw Dimple, Vijaywargiya Neelam, Pawar Shraddha, Pagare Nilima
Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Government College of Dentistry, Indore, IND.
Cureus. 2023 Jun 16;15(6):e40509. doi: 10.7759/cureus.40509. eCollection 2023 Jun.
Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effect of three different commercially available intra-orifice barriers and bleaching agents on root canal-treated teeth. Materials and methods Forty-five freshly extracted single-rooted incisors, canine, and premolars were collected and stored in 10% formalin. Root canal procedures were performed on the extracted teeth and these were classified into three groups and three subgroups (n=5). Group 1: resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC); placed at the level of cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and cured for 20 seconds. Group 2: Biodentin (Septodont Ltd., Saint Maur des Fausse´s, France); powder and liquid were mixed according to the manufacturer's instructions and placed at the level of CEJ, and waited for 15 minutes to set. Group 3: bulk-fill composite; placed at the level of CEJ. Group A was treated with 35% carbamide peroxide (Ultradent Opalescence 35% PF regular). Group B was bleached with 35% hydrogen peroxide (Pola Office). Group C, which was the control group, was treated with distilled water. The bleaching procedure was repeated once every seven days for a period of three weeks. After bleaching, every sample was sectioned 2 mm above the level of CEJ to remove the crown.Auniversal testing machine (UTM) was used for the evaluation of the fracture resistance of teeth. Data were analyzed for significance by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and further pair-wise comparison was performed by pos-hoc analysis. The level of significance was set at p<0.05 Results There was a significant difference between the fracture resistance of the three materials when bleached using distilled water (p<0.05). The fracture resistance of Group 3 was significantly greater than that of Group 2 and Group 1 (p<0.05). The difference in the fracture resistance between Group 1 and Group 2 was nonsignificant (p>0.05). Conclusion Walking bleach performed via bleaching agents 35% carbamide peroxide and 35% hydrogen peroxide leads to a reduction in the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth; 35% hydrogen peroxide causes more fracture resistance reduction than carbamide peroxide of the same concentration. The presence of intra-orifice barriers leads to greater fracture resistance and reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth that undergo the walking bleach procedure. Bulk-fill composite can be used as an intra-orifice barrier with good fracture resistance.
目的 本研究旨在评估三种不同的市售根管口屏障材料和漂白剂对根管治疗牙的影响。材料与方法 收集45颗新鲜拔除的单根切牙、尖牙和前磨牙,保存在10%的福尔马林中。对拔除的牙齿进行根管治疗,并将其分为三组,每组再分为三个亚组(n = 5)。第1组:树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(RMGIC);放置在牙骨质-釉质界(CEJ)水平,固化20秒。第2组:生物牙本质(法国圣莫里斯德福斯的Septodont有限公司);按照制造商的说明将粉末和液体混合,放置在CEJ水平,等待15分钟凝固。第3组:大块充填复合树脂;放置在CEJ水平。A组用35%过氧化脲(Ultradent Opalescence 35% PF常规型)处理。B组用35%过氧化氢(Pola Office)漂白。C组作为对照组,用蒸馏水处理。漂白程序每七天重复一次,持续三周。漂白后,每个样本在CEJ水平上方2毫米处切片以去除牙冠。使用万能试验机(UTM)评估牙齿的抗折强度。采用方差分析(ANOVA)分析数据的显著性,并通过事后分析进行进一步的两两比较。显著性水平设定为p < 0.05。结果 用蒸馏水漂白时,三种材料的抗折强度存在显著差异(p < 0.05)。第3组的抗折强度显著高于第2组和第1组(p < 0.05)。第1组和第2组之间的抗折强度差异不显著(p > 0.05)。结论 通过35%过氧化脲和35%过氧化氢漂白剂进行的活髓漂白会导致根管治疗牙的抗折强度降低;35%过氧化氢比相同浓度的过氧化脲导致更多的抗折强度降低。根管口屏障的存在会使接受活髓漂白程序的根管治疗牙具有更高的抗折强度并得到增强。大块充填复合树脂可作为具有良好抗折性的根管口屏障使用。