Suppr超能文献

使用各种再治疗锉系统并在有无放大条件下从根管中去除牙胶的比较评价:一项体外研究

Comparative Evaluation of the Removal of Gutta Percha From the Root Canal Using Various Retreatment File Systems With and Without Magnification: An In Vitro Study.

作者信息

Arun Nishitha, Solete Pradeep, Jeevanandan Ganesh, Antony Delphine P, Sairaman Sruthi, S Swathi

机构信息

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, IND.

Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, IND.

出版信息

Cureus. 2024 Jun 11;16(6):e62128. doi: 10.7759/cureus.62128. eCollection 2024 Jun.

Abstract

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

The main goal was to compare the efficacy of gutta percha (GP) removal from the root canal using the Neo Endo Retreatment file system, Solite RS3, and ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTUR) files with and without magnification under a direct operative microscope using stereomicroscopic evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty single-rooted teeth were randomly assigned to one of three groups after obturation till F2 mastercone with resin sealer: Group 1 (n=20): Neo Endo Retreatment Files, Group 2 (n=20): Solite RS3, Group 3 (n=20): PTUR files. Each group was further separated into two subgroups: Subgroup 1: without magnification (no direct operative microscope) and Subgroup 2: with magnification under a direct operative microscope at 12× magnification. After retreatment, the roots were grooved buccolingually and split into two halves using a diamond disc with the help of a chisel. The samples were examined under a stereomicroscope. Images were captured in a digital camera and analyzed using image analyzing software Image Pro v10 (Media Cybernetics).

RESULTS

The Neo Endo retreatment file system had a significantly greater percentage of remaining obturating material than the Solite RS3 Retreatment and PTUR file systems (p<0.05) in both groups with and without magnification. In the group without magnification, Solite RS3 showed a significant difference compared to ProTaper (p<0.05). In the group with magnification, there was no significant difference between the ProTaper Universal retreatment file system and Solite RS3 (p=0.589). Retreatment performed without magnification had more remnant GP when compared to the retreatment procedure performed under magnification of the direct operative microscope.

CONCLUSION

Under stereomicroscopic evaluation, the remnant GP was higher in the Neo Endo File System both with and without magnification than in the Solite Retreatment and PTUR file systems. ProTaper showed moderate significance in removing the obturation than Solite RS3 in the magnification group. The Solite RS3 file system performed as efficiently as the PTUR file system.

摘要

目的

主要目标是使用立体显微镜评估,比较在直接手术显微镜下,使用Neo Endo再治疗锉系统、Solite RS3和ProTaper通用再治疗(PTUR)锉去除根管内牙胶(GP)的效果,有无放大倍数的情况均进行比较。

材料与方法

60颗单根牙在使用树脂封闭剂充填至F2主尖后,随机分为三组:第1组(n = 20):Neo Endo再治疗锉;第2组(n = 20):Solite RS3;第3组(n = 20):PTUR锉。每组再进一步分为两个亚组:亚组1:无放大倍数(无直接手术显微镜);亚组2:在12倍放大倍数的直接手术显微镜下。再治疗后,牙根在颊舌向开槽,借助凿子用金刚石盘将其劈成两半。样本在立体显微镜下检查。图像用数码相机拍摄,并使用图像分析软件Image Pro v10(Media Cybernetics)进行分析。

结果

在有放大倍数和无放大倍数的两组中,Neo Endo再治疗锉系统残留充填材料的百分比均显著高于Solite RS3再治疗和PTUR锉系统(p<0.05)。在无放大倍数的组中,Solite RS3与ProTaper相比有显著差异(p<0.05)。在有放大倍数的组中,ProTaper通用再治疗锉系统与Solite RS3之间无显著差异(p = 0.589)。与在直接手术显微镜放大倍数下进行的再治疗程序相比,无放大倍数进行的再治疗残留的GP更多。

结论

在立体显微镜评估下,无论有无放大倍数,Neo Endo锉系统中残留的GP均高于Solite再治疗和PTUR锉系统。在放大倍数组中,ProTaper在去除充填物方面比Solite RS3有中度显著意义。Solite RS3锉系统的效果与PTUR锉系统一样有效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a851/11238020/34a1ac3631a9/cureus-0016-00000062128-i01.jpg

相似文献

3
Comparative analysis of novel heat-treated retreatment file system on the removal of obturating material using nano-computed tomography.
J Conserv Dent Endod. 2024 Jan;27(1):82-86. doi: 10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_224_23. Epub 2024 Jan 13.

引用本文的文献

1
Innovative Damage Assessment of Endodontic Instruments Based on Digital Image Stacking.
Clin Pract. 2024 Dec 26;15(1):3. doi: 10.3390/clinpract15010003.

本文引用的文献

1
Experts consensus on the procedure of dental operative microscope in endodontics and operative dentistry.
Int J Oral Sci. 2023 Sep 18;15(1):43. doi: 10.1038/s41368-023-00247-y.
2
Factors that affect the outcomes of root canal treatment and retreatment-A reframing of the principles.
Int Endod J. 2023 Mar;56 Suppl 2:82-115. doi: 10.1111/iej.13897. Epub 2023 Feb 10.
3
Residual Bacteriome after Chemomechanical Preparation of Root Canals in Primary and Secondary Infections.
J Endod. 2022 Jul;48(7):855-863. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2022.03.008. Epub 2022 Apr 4.
4
A Comparative Study of the Efficacy of WaveOne and NeoEndo Retreatment File System for the Removal of Gutta Percha from the Root Canal.
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021 Nov;13(Suppl 2):S1682-S1685. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_406_21. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
6
Comparison between Single-file Rotary Systems: Part 1-Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Adverse Effects in Endodontic Retreatment.
J Endod. 2018 Nov;44(11):1720-1724. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.07.022. Epub 2018 Sep 19.
7
Contemporary Cleaning and Shaping of the Root Canal System.
Prim Dent J. 2016 May 1;5(2):46-53. doi: 10.1308/205016816819304196.
8
Postoperative Pain after Endodontic Retreatment Using Rotary or Reciprocating Instruments: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
J Endod. 2017 Jul;43(7):1084-1088. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.02.010. Epub 2017 May 3.

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