Lee Y C, Yang S F, Hwang Y F, Chueh L H, Chung K H
Department of Retorative Dentistry, Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
J Endod. 1993 Oct;19(10):516-20. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81494-9.
This study compared the sealing of Caviton, Cavit, and IRM at two powder to liquid ratios of 6 g/ml and 2 g/ml. Standard endodontic access preparations were made in 140 noncarious, nonrestored crowns of extracted human molars. They were divided into six groups, including positive and negative controls. Microleakage assessment was evaluated by basic fuchsin dye penetration after thermal cycling (5 to 55 degrees C for 100 cycles). The results indicated that Caviton provided the best seal, followed by Cavit. Cavit demonstrated better sealing than IRM at the powder to liquid ratio of 6 g/ml and 2 g/ml. There was a statistically significant difference in leakage between the Cavit group and IRM (powder to liquid = 6 g/ml), between the Cavit group and IRM (powder to liquid = 2 g/ml) group (p < 0.05). However, no statistically significant difference between the two different powder to liquid ratio groups of IRM was disclosed.
本研究比较了Caviton、Cavit和IRM在6 g/ml和2 g/ml两种粉液比下的封闭性。在140颗拔除的人类磨牙的无龋、无修复的牙冠上制作标准的牙髓治疗通路预备。它们被分为六组,包括阳性和阴性对照。热循环(5至55摄氏度,100个循环)后,通过碱性品红染料渗透评估微渗漏。结果表明,Caviton的封闭性最佳,其次是Cavit。在6 g/ml和2 g/ml的粉液比下,Cavit的封闭性优于IRM。Cavit组与IRM组(粉液比 = 6 g/ml)之间、Cavit组与IRM组(粉液比 = 2 g/ml)之间的渗漏存在统计学显著差异(p < 0.05)。然而,IRM的两种不同粉液比组之间未发现统计学显著差异。