Khedmat Sedigheh, Abaee Seyyed Ali, Assadian Hadi, Signore Antonio, Benedicenti Stefano
Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran 14399-55991, Iran.
Therapeutic Dentistry Department, Institute of Dentistry, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Trubetskaya Str. 8, b. 2, 119992 Moscow, Russia.
J Funct Biomater. 2024 Dec 24;16(1):3. doi: 10.3390/jfb16010003.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of retro-cavity preconditioning with or without 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) solution on root surface pH as well as dislodgement resistance of NeoMTA2 and MTA Flow retro-fills. Forty-eight single-rooted human incisors were selected. After completion of endodontic treatment, root-end resections were performed, and retro-cavities were prepared. The samples were randomly divided into two groups of A and B ( = 24 each). In group A, retro-cavities were preconditioned with 2.5% NaOCl, followed by 17% EDTA solution, whereas in group B, preconditioning was performed using 2.5% NaOCl before final irrigation with normal saline. Samples in each group were randomly subdivided into two subgroups of 1 and 2. Retro-fillings in the A1 and B1 subgroups were performed with MTA Flow, and in the A2 and B2 subgroups, they were performed with NeoMTA2. Root surface pH was measured in each sample at three different stages: before preparation of retro-cavities (pH0), after retro-cavity preconditioning (pH1), and three days after retro-filling (pH2). Subsequently, the push-out bond strength (PBS) of the retro-filling materials was measured by a universal testing machine, and their failure modes were visualized under 64× magnification. Preconditioning with EDTA caused a significant increase in PBS for both NeoMTA2 and MTA Flow ( < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the average bond strength of MTA Flow and Neo MTA2 ( = 0.271). There was a significant increase in the average pH2 compared to pH1 and pH0 across all groups ( < 0.001). Specifically, the use of EDTA led to a notable increase in the average pH2 in the MTA Flow group compared to the Neo MTA2 group ( = 0.027). Groups preconditioned with EDTA more frequently indicated a cohesive failure mode. The use of EDTA significantly increased the push-out bond strength of retro-fill materials to dentin. However, it did not prevent the ultimate alkalinity of retro-filled cavities.
本研究的目的是调查使用或不使用17%乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）溶液进行根管后腔预处理对牙根表面pH值以及NeoMTA2和MTA Flow根管倒充填物抗脱位性的影响。选取了48颗单根人切牙。完成根管治疗后，进行根尖切除术并制备根管后腔。样本随机分为A、B两组（每组n = 24）。A组先用2.5%次氯酸钠对根管后腔进行预处理，然后用17% EDTA溶液处理；而B组先用2.5%次氯酸钠进行预处理，最后用生理盐水冲洗。每组样本再随机细分为1组和2组两个亚组。A1和B1亚组用MTA Flow进行根管倒充填，A2和B2亚组用NeoMTA2进行根管倒充填。在每个样本的三个不同阶段测量牙根表面pH值：根管后腔制备前（pH0）、根管后腔预处理后（pH1）以及根管倒充填后三天（pH2）。随后，用万能试验机测量根管倒充填材料的推出粘结强度（PBS），并在64倍放大倍数下观察其失败模式。用EDTA预处理使NeoMTA2和MTA Flow的PBS均显著增加（P < 0.001）。MTA Flow和NeoMTA2的平均粘结强度之间无显著差异（P = 0.271）。与pH1和pH0相比，所有组的平均pH2均显著升高（P < 0.001）。具体而言，与NeoMTA2组相比，使用EDTA使MTA Flow组的平均pH2显著升高（P = 0.027）。用EDTA预处理的组更常表现为粘结性失败模式。使用EDTA显著提高了根管倒充填材料与牙本质的推出粘结强度。然而，它并未阻止根管倒充填腔的最终碱化。
