二氧化氯作为根管超声冲洗剂的清洁效果

目的 评价二氧化氯用作根管超声冲洗剂的清洁效果.方法 选择30颗离体单根管前磨牙,截去牙冠后随机平分成A、B、C三组,用手持不锈钢器械逐步后退法进行根管预备,超声波冲洗,冲洗剂分别为蒸馏水、1.0%次氯酸钠和0.1%二氧化氯溶液.完成根管预备后纵行劈开牙根,扫描电镜观察,在根管颈1/3、中1/3、尖1/3各部位随机拍照,在电镜照片上评定根管壁上碎屑和玷污层记分,计数牙本质小管开放数目,并进行统计学分析.结果 A、B、C各组碎屑记分差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);B、C两组的玷污层明显少于A组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);牙本质小管开放数也明显多于A组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01),但B、C两组之间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 0.1%二氧化氯溶液用作根管超声冲洗剂,具有良好的清洁作用,对碎屑和玷污层的去除能力不亚于1.0%次氯酸钠,明显优于蒸馏水.     

穿心莲纳米乳液用于根管冲洗的清洁性实验研究

目的:评价穿心莲纳米乳液用于根管冲洗的清洁性。方法:收集50个新鲜拔除的单根管前磨牙,随机分为5组。采用镍钛锉冠向下法预备根管,分别使用5组冲洗液进行根管冲洗。A组为穿心莲纳米乳液,B组为穿心莲提取液,C组为1%次氯酸钠(NaClO),D组为3%NaClO,E组为0.9%的生理盐水。最后每组分别用17%乙二胺四乙酸二钠(EDTA)、生理盐水冲洗根管。采用数码相机和扫描电镜观察,分别比较根尖、根中和根冠1/3区根管内碎屑百分数和玷污层评分。结果:根尖1/3:E组碎屑百分数和玷污层明显高于其他4组,C组玷污层评分明显高于A组和D组(P<0.05)。根中1/3:E组碎屑百分数和玷污层评分明显高于其他4组,C组碎屑含量明显多于A组和D组(P<0.05)。根冠1/3:E组碎屑百分数和玷污层评分明显高于其他4组,C组玷污层评分明显高于D组(P<0.05)。结论:冲洗液的清洁性排序：3%NaClO、穿心莲纳米乳液、穿心莲提取液、1%NaClO、生理盐水。穿心莲纳米乳液被认为是可能用于根管冲洗的中药冲洗液。     

不同冲洗剂对桩道内壁牙本质形态的影响

目的:比较3种冲洗液5.25%NaClO溶液和15%EDTA溶液、0.2%的氯己定溶液对桩道内壁形态的影响。方法:筛选18颗新鲜拔出单根管前磨牙,在釉牙骨质界上2 mm处截冠,随机分成3组。常规根管充填、桩道预备后分别用A:蒸馏水(对照组)、B:5.25%NaClO溶液和15%EDTA溶液、C:0.2%的氯己定溶液冲洗桩道,将牙根纵向劈开。选取能够较好展示根管壁的一侧作为样本,扫描电子显微镜观察根中1/3的牙本质表面,按Gorman分类法记分,记录数据并统计分析。结果:A组玷污层较厚,有中等量杂质及碎屑残留,牙本质小管极少或不可见;B组清洁程度最高,玷污层极少,极少量杂质及碎屑残留,牙本质小管开口较清晰;C组有部分玷污层,少量杂质及碎屑残留,牙本质小管开口部分可见。各组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:冲洗处理对桩道对牙本质表面有影响,应用5.25%NaClO溶液和15%EDTA溶液冲洗效果最好。     

PIPS联合纳米银对根管粪肠球菌抗菌效果研究

目的 探究激光引发光声流系统(PIPS)和纳米银(AgNPs)联合使用对根管内粪肠球菌生物膜的抗菌效果。方法 收集36颗单根管离体牙,建立粪肠球菌感染根管实验模型,将样本随机分成6组,采用0.9%NaCl、2%NaClO、0.1%AgNPs溶液分别联合传统手动冲洗(CNI)或PIPS对根管进行冲洗,使用菌落计数法测定治疗前后根管内粪肠球菌生物膜菌落数,并计算菌落计数减少的百分比。结果 所有实验组粪肠球菌生物膜的抑制效果均强于对照组(P<0.05),使用PIPS辅助0.9%NaCl、2%NaClO、0.1%AgNPs冲洗组的降幅均分别大于CNI辅助0.9%NaCl、2%NaClO、0.1%AgNPs冲洗组(P<0.05)。PIPS辅助0.1%AgNPs冲洗组的降幅明显大于PIPS辅助2%NaClO冲洗组(P<0.05)。结论 PIPS辅助AgNPs溶液冲洗可以显著提高根管内粪肠球菌生物膜的清除效果。     

不同pH值乙二胺四乙酸盐对根管玷污层作用的体外研究

目的研究不同pH值的乙二胺四乙酸盐(EDTA)去除根管玷污层的效果。方法60颗离体单根管牙应用逐步后退法进行根管扩大,分别以6组根管冲洗液进行根管冲洗。A组:生理盐水;B组:临床常用的根管冲洗剂5.25%NaOCl+3%H2O2;C组:pH=6.5的15%EDTA;D组:pH=13的15%EDTA;E组:pH=6.5的15%EDTA+5.25%NaOCl+3%H2O2;F组:pH=13的15%EDTA+5.25%NaOCl+3%H2O2,然后将牙体沿颊舌向纵劈,应用扫描电镜对不同冲洗液在根冠1/3、中1/3、尖1/3部位玷污层去除的效果进行观察。结果临床常用的根管冲洗剂对根管玷污层几乎无清除效果,C、D、E、F组对根冠1/3、中1/3玷污层均有清除效果,其中C组优于D组,E组效果最佳,但它们对根尖1/3的部位清除效果均不显著,而且组间无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论pH=6.5的15%EDTA+5.25%NaOCl+3%H2O2对根管玷污层的去除效果最好。     

声波器械去除根管玷污层能力的比较研究

目的:比较声波、超声波和手用器械去除根管玷污层能力。方法:收集离体单根管的前磨牙40个,随机分为4组,分别由声波器械、超声波器械、手用器械以及声波和手用器械联合行根管预备,应用扫描电镜进行观察,采用Wilcoxon秩和检验进行统计学分析,根据根管表面的玷污层的量和牙本质碎屑比较声波器械去除根管玷污层的能力。结果:根尖1/3部分,在去除玷污层方面,声波器械组、超声波器械组以及声波器械和手用器械联合组,与手用器械组之间有显著性差异(P<0.05);在去除牙本质碎屑方面,超声波器械组与手用器械组之间亦有显著性差异(P<0.05),声波器械组以及声波器械和手用器械联合组与手用器械组之间有非常显著性差异(P<0.01)。声波器械组以及声波器械和手用器械联合组,与超声波器械组在去除玷污层和牙本质碎屑方面无显著性差异(P>0.05)。根中1/3和根上1/3部分,各组间比较均无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:根尖1/3根管预备,声波器械去除玷污层和牙本质碎屑的能力优于手用器械,尤其是去除牙本质碎屑的能力更强;与超声波器械近似。     

不同超声冲洗液和不同时间对根管预备后清洁效果的扫描电镜观察

目的　比较不同超声冲洗液及不同超声冲洗时间对根管预备后清洁的效果。方法　80颗离体单根管上颌前牙应用机用镍钛Protaper根管预备至F3后随机分为8组,分别用不同冲洗液超声冲洗1 min和3 min,A、B组用复方氯己定含漱液,C、D组用3%H2O2溶液,E、F组用蒸馏水,G、H组用17%EDTA溶液。最后将牙体沿颊舌向纵劈,扫描电镜观察各组样本在根颈、中、尖1/3牙本质碎屑与玷污层的清除情况,根据评分统计分析比较各组根管清洁效果。结果　不同冲洗液超声冲洗1 min时,在根颈部和根中部,G组与其它各组之间比较有显著性差异（P＜0.05）。在根尖部,G组与C组差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,C组与A、E组比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。不同冲洗液超声冲洗3 min时,在根颈部和根中部,H组与其它各组之间比较有显著性差异（P＜0.05）。在根尖部,H组与D组比较无显著性差异（P＞0.05）,但与B、F组比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。相同冲洗液不同冲洗时间时, A、B组在根中及根尖部差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,C、D组在根尖部差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,E、F组之间和G、H组之间比较无显著性差异（P＞0.05）。结论　17%EDTA溶液超声冲洗1 min就可去除根管玷污层和碎屑。3%H2O2和复方氯己定含漱液超声冲洗1 min效果虽不及17%EDTA,但适当延长冲洗时间可增强根尖部清洁效果。     

去除玷污层的方法对根管充填密合性的影响

目的 观察根管冲洗剂与超声根管预备法能否去除玷污层以及去除玷污层对根管充填密合性的影响。方法 75颗离体牙随机分为3组,每组25颗。A组常规根管预备,扩锉中和扩挫后用生理盐水(NS)和3％双氧水(H_2O_2)冲洗;B组根管预备同A组,扩锉完成后用15％乙二胺四乙酸(EDTA)和5.25％次氯酸钠(NaOCl)交替冲洗;C组使用超声波根管扩大锉预备根管,NS冲洗。常规根管充填后用扫描电镜观察根管内壁表面形态,并做染液渗漏实验。结果 用手持器械预备根管,NS和3％H_2O_2冲洗根管,不能去除玷污层;使用15％EDTA和5.25％NaOCl交替冲洗根管,则可完全去除玷污层;用超声器械预备根管,对去除根管玷污层具有一定的作用。去除玷污层,充填材料进入牙本质小管,根尖微渗漏显著降低(P<0.05)。结论 去除玷污层,能增强充填材料边缘密合性和根尖封闭性,根尖徽渗漏显著降低。     

声波与超声波器械配合不同冲洗液对根管清理效果的扫描电镜研究

目的：比较声波与超声波根管器械配合不同冲洗液预备根管的清理效果。方法：制作根管扫描电镜标本，观察根管玷污层分布和牙本质小管暴露情况，各标本的冠1／3、中1／3、根尖1／3区域各取10个500倍视野照相，分级评分(玷污层分数，SL)。统计学分析比较三种冲洗液条件下声波和超声波器械根管清理的差异。结果：仅以蒸馏水作冲洗液，声波不能有效清理碎屑与玷污层；25g／L NaClO冲洗，根尖1／3玷污层的去除超声组优于声波组，但未清除玷污层栓层；25g／L NaClO结合170g／L EDTA作冲洗液，玷污层去除显著且两组无显著差异，但根尖1／3差于根管中上段，超声组部分区域牙本质小管蚀刻与融合。结论：声波结合25g／L NaClO和170g／L EDTA可有效去除玷污层并达到与超声器械近似的根管清理效果，根管内荡洗去除玷污层栓层效果显著，且未对根管壁产生破坏，但有必要加强根尖部荡洗。     

不同方法去除根管壁玷污层效果的实验研究

目的:评价4种不同方法去除根管壁玷污层的能力。方法:将40颗离体牙随机分为4组进行根管预备,使用不同方法去除玷污层,分别为:A组H2O2和生理盐水,B组EDTA凝胶和5.25%的NaClO,C组超声波,D组超声波联合5.25%NaClO+EDTA。将处理后的样本纵剖开,扫描电镜观察4组根管壁的界面,比较3个不同部位玷污层的去除情况、根管壁的清洁程度、牙本质小管的开放程度及腐蚀程度。结果:对照组(A组)根管壁被玷污层覆盖,实验组(B、C、D组)根管壁玷污层去除明显,B、C、D组与A组间冠1/3、中1/3、尖1/3玷污层评分差异有显著性(P<0.05);3个实验组间冠1/3、中1/3、尖1/3玷污层评分差异无显著性(P>0.05);D组冠1/3和中1/3可见到根管壁有不同程度的腐蚀。结论:NaClO与EDTA,超声波以及超声联合NaClO与EDTA均可有效地去除根管壁上的玷污层,但超声联合NaClO与EDTA能造成牙本质小管的腐蚀。     

Effectiveness of oxidative potential water as a root canal irrigant

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of oxidative potential water (OPW) as an irrigant, based on its ability to remove the smear layer and/or debris from instrumented root canals. METHODOLOGY: One hundred and twenty root canals from extracted human maxillary incisors were instrumented using a conventional step-back technique with irrigation from sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) or oxidative potential water (OPW). After instrumentation, the canals were irrigated by syringe or ultrasound using 15% EDTA or OPW as an irrigant. The volume of each irrigant used for syringe irrigation was 10, 20, and 30 mL, respectively, whilst the duration for ultrasonic irrigation was 1, 3, and 5 min, respectively. After irrigation, each root was split longitudinally in two with cutting pliers, and the specimens were prepared for SEM observation. The presence of debris and smear layer on each canal wall was assessed using a three-point scale for each parameter. RESULTS: Smear layer was effectively removed with EDTA both introduced via syringe and via ultrasonic irrigation. A similar effect was observed with OPW via syringe irrigation following instrumentation with 5% NaOCl. The canal walls in any of these cases showed open and patent dentinal tubules following smear layer removal. Some specimens irrigated with EDTA exhibited the effect of demineralization on the dentine resulting in funnelling of tubule orifices. Syringe irrigation was more effective in smear layer removal, except for ultrasonic irrigation with 15% EDTA, whilst ultrasonic irrigation was more effective in debris removal including the use of OPW as irrigant following instrumentation with 5% NaOCl. Neither syringe nor ultrasonic irrigation with OPW following instrumentation with OPW removed smear layer or debris effectively. CONCLUSIONS: The most effective irrigation technique for smear removal was 15% EDTA irrigation by means of syringe following instrumentation with 5% NaOCl solution. However, the most effective irrigation technique for debris removal was ultrasonic irrigation regardless of irrigant used. OPW irrigation by means of syringe following instrumentation with 5% NaOCl showed a similar effect to that of 15% EDTA irrigation for removal of smear layer and debris.     

Root canal debridement efficacy of different final irrigation protocols

Al-Ali M, Sathorn C, Parashos P. Root canal debridement efficacy of different final irrigation protocols. International Endodontic Journal,?45, 898-906, 2012. ABSTRACT: Aim To compare the smear layer and debris removal effectiveness of four root canal irrigation protocols as well as their effectiveness in removing remaining soft tissues in curved root canals. Methodology The mesiobuccal and mesial root canals of 107 extracted human maxillary and mandibular molars were instrumented using Mtwo rotary NiTi instruments then randomly divided into four groups according to a final rinse protocol: Group 1 (n?=?28) - manual agitation of 1% NaOCl and 15% EDTA; Group 2 (n?=?26) - CanalBrush agitation of 1% NaOCl and 15% EDTA; Group 3 (n?=?26) - 3% H(2) O(2) alternated with 1% NaOCl; Group 4 (n?=?27) - passive ultrasonic agitation of 1% NaOCl and 15% EDTA. All irrigation protocols were performed in a closed system. Eleven roots per group were prepared and histologically stained (H&E) to assess percentage of remaining pulpal tissues in the apical thirds. The remaining specimens were split longitudinally and examined under scanning electron microscope at ×2000 magnification to assess smear layer and debris removal. Image Pro Plus 6.0 software was used to analyse smear layer and remaining pulp tissue. Debris presence was scored by two blinded investigators using a five-point scale. Data were analysed using Univariate analysis of variance (GenStat 13, α?=?0.05). Results CanalBrush and passive ultrasonic irrigation were equally effective with significantly less smear layer and debris than manual agitation and H(2) O(2) alternated with NaOCl (P?相似文献   

Effectiveness of different activated irrigation techniques on debris and smear layer removal from curved root canals: a SEM evaluation

This study evaluates the effectiveness of different activated irrigation techniques on removal of debris and smear layer from curved root canals. Ninety mandibular molars with a root canal curvature between 20 and 40 degrees were assigned to 4 groups (n = 20): syringe irrigation (SI), passive ultrasonic activation (PUI), sonic activation with EDDY (ED) or EndoActivator (EA) and a control group. Mesiobuccal root canals were prepared to size 40, 0.04 and irrigated with NaOCl (3%) according to the respective technique. Roots were split longitudinally and subjected to scanning electron microscopic analysis. Presence of debris and smear layer was evaluated using 5‐grade scoring systems with 200× and 1000× magnification, respectively. Data were analysed with nonparametric analysis for ordinal longitudinal data (α = 5%). Activation of the irrigant significantly improved smear layer removal (P < 0.05). Regarding debris, only activation with EA and ED was significantly more effective than SI (P < 0.05). No activation technique was able to eliminate debris and smear layer completely from curved root canals.     

5种冲洗剂组合对前牙直根管清洁效果的比较

目的：比较5种冲洗剂组合对前牙直根管的清洁效果。方法：25颗离体直根管前牙,随机分为5组,不锈钢K锉常规法预备根管．应用5种冲洗剂组合进行冲洗。第1组：根管器械预备期间和预备结束后依次用1％NaOCl和3％H2O2冲洗;第2组：根管器械预备期间用1％NaOCl冲洗,预备结束后用17％EDTA冲洗;第3组：根管器械预备期间和预备结束后依次用1％NaOCl和17％EDTA冲洗：第4组：根管器械预备期间依次用17％EDTA和1％NaOCl冲洗,器械预备结束后用17％EDTA冲洗;第5组：根管器械预备期间依次用17％EDTA、1％Triton X-100(表面活性剂)和1％NaOCl冲洗．器械预备结束后用17％EDTA冲洗。每组冲洗剂剂量和冲洗时间均为22ml和7min。将牙纵劈后进行扫描电镜观察。结果：第1组,根管壁上见典型玷污层结构和大量杂质和残屑。第2组在根管冠、中1／3能部分去除玷污层．根尖1／3残留大量玷污层。第3组虽然能有效去除玷污层．但会引起牙本质小管中度腐蚀。第5组在根管冠、中1／3能部分去除玷污层,但根管壁上黏着大量杂质和残屑．此外还存在重度腐蚀现象。第4组根管清洁效果最好,且对牙本质小管无腐蚀性。结论：在严格控制冲洗时间和顺序的情况下,联合应用17％EDTA和1％NaOCl能有效去除玷污层．且不会腐蚀牙本质小管。     

The efficacy of laser,ultrasound and self‐adjustable file in removing smear layer debris from oval root canals following retreatment: A scanning electron microscopy study

This study aims to compare the efficacy of different irrigation activation methods to remove smear layer and debris from oval‐shaped root canals following retreatment. Ninety mandibular canines with oval‐shaped root canals were selected. Retreatment was performed with R‐Endo retreatment files. The samples were randomly divided into six groups (n = 15). Groups were assigned according to agitation technique: R‐Endo with classic irrigation, with self‐adjustable file, with passive ultrasonic irrigation, R‐Endo + Er:YAG, R‐Endo + PIPS and R‐Endo + Nd:YAG. Compared with the classic irrigation (R‐Endo + CI) group, all other groups were more successful in reducing smear layer and debris (P < 0.05). The least amount of residual smear layer and debris was detected in the Er:YAG laser group (P < 0.05). Additional use of different agitation methods contributes to removal of debris and smear layer following root canal filling removal with rotary instruments; however, none of the techniques tested render root canal walls completely free of smear layer or debris.     

Efficacy of smear layer removal at the root tip by using ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and erbium, chromium: yttrium, scandium, gallium garnet laser

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of laser-driven irrigation in removing the smear layer and debriding the apical region of the root canal (the root tip) with that of ultrasonic irrigation.

Methods

Forty extracted human teeth with straight single roots were randomized into 4 groups (n = 10). The specimens were shaped by using hand instruments up to a size 30/.02 file (Control, Laser 1, and Laser 2 groups) or a size 20/.02 file (Laser 3 group). During instrumentation, each canal was irrigated with 3% NaOCl and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid alternately between the use of successive files. The 4 groups of 10 teeth were processed as follows. In the Control group, teeth were irrigated with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, and the irrigant was activated with an ultrasonic device for 60 seconds. In the Laser 1 and Laser 3 groups, the irrigant was activated with the laser for 60 seconds. In the Laser 2 group, the irrigant was activated with the laser for 30 seconds.

Results

There were significant differences between the smear layer and debris scores for the Laser 1 group and those for the Control (P < .001), Laser 2 (P = .002), and Laser 3 groups (P = .012 and P = .013, respectively). Completely clean root canals were found in the Laser 1 group.

Conclusions

Use of a laser with a plain fiber tip, which produces cavitation in the irrigant, has potential as an improved alternative method for removing of the smear layer from the apical region of a straight root canal.     

The influence of volume, type of irrigant and flushing method on removing artificially placed dentine debris from the apical root canal during passive ultrasonic irrigation

AIM: To determine the influence of volume, irrigant and method of flushing on the removal of artificially-placed dentine debris from the apical part of root canals during passive ultrasonic irrigation. METHODOLOGY: Access cavities were prepared in 15 canine teeth and their root canals instrumented to size 20, 0.10 taper. Each root was split longitudinally, forming two halves. A groove was cut in the canal wall 2-6 mm from the apex in each half which was then filled with dentine debris prior to the roots being reassembled. All canals were ultrasonically irrigated, using a size 15, 0.02 taper smooth wire to a length of 21 mm that was placed in the canal to the apical foramen. In group 1 the canal was flushed with a continuous flow of 50 mL 2% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). In group 2 the continuous flow was not used but the canal was flushed with 12 mL 2% NaOCl, at a rate of 2 mL 30 s-1 using a syringe. Group 3 was treated in the same way as group 2 but the canal was flushed with 6 mL 2% NaOCl, at a rate of 2 mL min-1. Group 4 was treated in the same way as group 1 but water was used as the irrigant. Before and after irrigation, images of the grooves were captured and stored. The quantity of dentine debris in the groove was evaluated. The differences in debris scores between the experimental groups were analysed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. The level of significance was set at P=0.05. RESULTS: The difference between all groups was statistically significant (K-W test P<0.001).Groups 1, 2 and 3 differed significantly from group 4 (P<0.001); there was no significant difference between groups 1, 2 and 3 (P=0.550). CONCLUSIONS: Syringe delivery of 2% NaOCl (6 and 12 mL) was as effective as a continuous flow of 2% NaOCl (50 mL). Water was not effective in removing dentine debris from grooves in the apical portion of root canals.