Kilic Yagmur, Tulgar Mustafa Mert, Karataslioglu Emrah, Turk Tugba
Faculty Of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey.
Institute Health Science, Department Dental Biomaterials, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 Jul 2;25(1):991. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06419-y.
To seal the entire root canal system is the main objective of root canal treatment. While obturating the main root canal, sealing the dentinal tubules that are known to open to the root canal system plays an important role. Present study investigated the dentine tubule penetration of different root canal sealers combined with different irrigation activation methods using an in-vitro model.
The root canal preperation of the 144 samples was completed using the Ni-Ti rotary K7 system. All samples were divided into 3 groups (n = 48) according to irrigation activation(sonic activation, passive ultrasonic activation and needle activation). Activation groups were divided into 4 subgroups (n = 12) according to the root canal sealer used (GuttaFlow, Bioroot RCS, AH Plus Bio, AH Plus Jet). Horizontal sections taken at the 6 mm level from the apex were examined with CLSM to evaluate the maximum penetration depth and penetration percentage. The normal distribution of numerical variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. The homogeneity of variances among groups was analyzed with the Levene test. Comparisons for log penetration depth and penetration percentage were made using two-way analysis of variance.
In terms of penetration area, sonic activation showed significantly higher values compared to needle activation, while ultrasonic activation did not differ significantly from these two methods (p = 0.048). The Bioroot RCS group had a significantly higher penetration area percentage compared to the GuttaFlow group, with no significant differences among the other sealer groups (p = 0.017). In the AH Plus Jet group, the maximum penetration depth with ultrasonic activation was found to be significantly higher compared to needle activation (p = 0.036).
It was found that sonic activation and BioRoot RCS were superior in dentinal tubule penetration compared to other groups. All the groups have demonstrated penetration. It is believed that effective dentinal tubule penetration can be achieved with continuous irrigation, properly applied activation systems, and adherence to manufacturer instructions when using root canal sealers.
封闭整个根管系统是根管治疗的主要目标。在充填主根管时,封闭已知通向根管系统的牙本质小管起着重要作用。本研究使用体外模型研究了不同根管封闭剂与不同冲洗激活方法对牙本质小管的渗透情况。
使用镍钛旋转K7系统完成144个样本的根管预备。所有样本根据冲洗激活方式(声波激活、被动超声激活和针激活)分为3组(n = 48)。激活组根据所使用的根管封闭剂(GuttaFlow、Bioroot RCS、AH Plus Bio、AH Plus Jet)分为4个亚组(n = 12)。从根尖6毫米处水平切片,用共聚焦激光扫描显微镜(CLSM)检查,以评估最大渗透深度和渗透百分比。使用夏皮罗-威尔克正态性检验评估数值变量的正态分布。用Levene检验分析各组间方差的齐性。使用双向方差分析对对数渗透深度和渗透百分比进行比较。
在渗透面积方面,声波激活显示的值显著高于针激活,而超声激活与这两种方法无显著差异(p = 0.048)。Bioroot RCS组的渗透面积百分比显著高于GuttaFlow组,其他封闭剂组之间无显著差异(p = 0.017)。在AH Plus Jet组中,超声激活的最大渗透深度显著高于针激活(p = 0.036)。
发现声波激活和BioRoot RCS在牙本质小管渗透方面优于其他组。所有组均显示有渗透。据信,通过持续冲洗、正确应用激活系统以及在使用根管封闭剂时遵循制造商说明,可以实现有效的牙本质小管渗透。