两种根管充填材料一次性根管充填后近期疼痛情况分析

目的:比较Cortisomol糊剂和氧化锌丁香油糊剂加牙胶尖两种根管充填材料一次性根管充填后疼痛发生情况。方法:临床上随机选择296个需要进行根管治疗的死髓牙,分别采用Cortisomol糊剂加牙胶尖和氧化锌丁香油糊剂加牙胶尖两种根管充填材料一次性充填根管。结果:Cortisomol糊剂组较氧化锌丁香油糊剂组的可自愈性疼痛发生率低,有显著性差异。结论:Cortisomol糊剂加牙胶尖根管充填可以减少根管充填后疼痛的发生,是一种较好的一次性根管充填材料。     

3种根管封闭剂根管充填的术后反应观察

对180 颗患慢性根尖周炎单根管前牙进行根管治疗,在根管充填时分别采用氧化锌丁香油糊剂,Cortisomol糊剂,AH Plus糊剂加牙胶进行冷侧压法充填,观察根管充填后24 h～1 周的反应,为临床使用根管封闭剂提供依据.     

根管糊剂粉液比对根管封闭性能的影响

目的:探讨根管糊剂粉液比对根管封闭性能的影响.方法:选取105颗单根管牙,随机分成7组,每组15颗.分别用粉液重量比为2:1、2.8:1和4:1的氧化锌丁香油糊剂和Cortisomol糊剂各3组充填根管,以Roekoseal糊剂为对照组.经染料渗透后沿长轴纵向剖开,在体视显微镜下观察根管渗漏染色长度.用SPSS12.0软件作方差分析.结果:氧化锌丁香油糊剂和Cortisomol糊剂粉液重量比为2:1、2.8:1和4:13组组间微渗漏差异均有显著性,除了粉液比为4:l的Cortisomol糊剂组外,Roekoseal糊剂组和其余各组比较组间差异均有显著性;其中氧化锌丁香油糊剂粉液比为2:1的染料渗漏长度最长,Roekoseal糊剂组的染料渗漏长度最短.结论:本实验中粉液比的增加可提高根管的封闭性.     

根管糊剂表面张力对根管密封性能的影响

目的:探讨氧化锌丁香油糊剂和cortisomol糊剂的表面张力对根管封闭性能的影响。方法:测定不同粉液比的氧化锌丁香油糊剂和cortisomol糊剂的表面张力。选取60颗单根管牙,随机分成6组。分别用3种不同表面张力的氧化锌丁香油糊剂和Cortisomol糊剂各3组充填根管。经染料渗透后沿牙体长轴纵向剖开,在体视显微镜下观察根管渗漏染色长度。用SPSS12.0软件作方差分析。结果:3种不同表面张力的氧化锌丁香油糊剂和Cortisomol糊剂组组间微渗漏长度差异均有显著性。结论:本实验显示同种糊剂适当降低根管糊剂的表面张力可提高根管的密封程度。     

2种测定根尖微渗漏方法的比较

目的:比较透明牙技术和染料溶解法评价根尖微渗漏的一致性.方法:选取人单根管牙49颗,随机分为A、B、C 3个实验组各15颗牙和2个对照组各2颗牙.根管预备后,实验组分别采用AH Plus(A组)、Cortisomol(B组)、氧化锌丁香油糊剂(C组)3种根管充填糊剂联合牙胶进行根管充填,阳性对照组采用单一牙胶尖进行充填;充填后,阳性对照组和实验组均将根尖孔区(根尖孔周围2mm范围)以外的牙体表面涂布2层指甲油.阴性对照组采用牙胶尖加AH Plus糊剂进行根管充填,充填后整个牙体表面涂布2层指甲油.将所有实验样本染色,分别采用透明牙技术和染料溶解法进行根尖微渗漏评价,采用SPSS12.0软件包对结果进行统计学分析.根据数据情况,分别采用方差分析和秩和检验,分析2种方法的一致性.结果:2种评价根尖微渗漏的方法均显示,A组(AH Plus糊剂)根尖微渗漏较其他2个实验组小(P＜0.05);B组(Cortisomol)、C组(氧化锌丁香油糊剂)根尖微渗漏无统计学差异(P＞0.05).结论:在染色法基础上,透明牙技术和染料溶解法进行根尖微渗漏的评价结果具有一致性.     

Cortisomol糊剂充填根管的近期疗效

目的比较Cortisomol糊剂加牙胶尖、氧化锌丁香油糊剂加牙胶尖充填根管后反应和近期疗效.方法625个需进行根管治疗术的患牙随机分为4组;2组分别采用Cortisomol糊剂加牙胶尖(Cortisomol 1组)和氧化锌丁香油糊剂加牙胶尖(氧化锌1组)一次法充填根管.另2组经引流2 d 后分别用Cortisomol糊剂加牙胶尖(Cortisomol 2组)和氧化锌丁香油糊剂加牙胶尖(氧化锌2组)充填根管.观察术后1周内疼痛发生情况以及术后3个月、6个月疗效.结果Cortisomol 1组术后疼痛发生率较氧化锌1组低,Cortisomol 2组疼痛发率较氧化锌2组低,有显著性差异(P<0.05),Cortisomol 1组较Cortisomol 2组疼痛发生率高,无显著性差异(P>0.05),氧化锌1组疼痛发生率较氧化锌2组高,有显著性差异(P<0.05);术后3个月、6个月复查,Cortisomol糊剂组疗效高于氧化锌糊剂组,但无显著性差异(P>0.05). 结论Cortisomol糊剂充填根管可以有效减少一次法根管充填后疼痛发生,与氧化锌糊剂比较,近期疗效无明显差异.     

AH Plus 根管充填糊剂在根管治疗术中的疗效观察

目的：观察AH Plus根管充填糊剂在根管治疗术中的疗效。方法：选择临床348例需要根管治疗的根尖周炎的病人,年龄16-70岁,随机分为两组。根管治疗术中分别以AH Plus糊剂（实验组）和氧化锌丁香油糊剂（对照组）进行根管充填,比较两者疗效。结果：根管充填1周后复诊,术后疼痛发生率实验组16%,对照组47%;1年后根管治疗术成功率实验组92%,对照组90%。结论：AH Plus糊剂与氧化锌丁香油糊剂比较,前者术后疼痛反应小,两者根管治疗术成功率无显著性差异,AH plus糊剂是临床一种值得推广的根充糊剂。     

三种根管糊剂用于一次性根管治疗术后的评价

目的：对AH Plus,Vitapex及Cortisomol糊剂在一次性根管治疗术后,对疼痛及远期疗效评价。方法：180颗患牙随机分为三组,分别以AH Plus,Vitapex和Cortisomol糊剂配合牙胶尖充填根管,对术后1周、3、6、12个月的疼痛及远期疗效进行评估。结果：术后1周随访,AH Plus、Cortisomol糊剂与Vitapex疼痛发生率有显著性差异,前两者之间无显著性差异;经3、6、12个月复查,在根尖周炎病例的治疗中,Vitapex与AH Plus和Cortisomol糊剂远期愈合率有显著性差异,后两者之间无显著性差异。结论：AH Plus和Cortisomol糊剂对一次性根管治疗术后疼痛的缓解有较好的效果,而Vitapex糊剂在促进根尖周组织的愈合方面,更具有优越性。     

应用牙本质屏障法测定牙齿充填材料体外细胞毒性

目的:探讨牙本质屏障法用于牙齿充填材料体外细胞毒性试验测定的特点。方法:低速锯片切新鲜拔除的磨牙,获取紧邻牙髓的颊侧牙本质片,选择通透值相近的牙本质片作为牙本质屏障,制作细胞毒性体外测试装置,用此装置测定氧化锌丁香油水门汀、复合树脂、玻璃离子水门汀、氢氧化钙水门汀、磷酸锌水门汀及阴性对照材料和阳性对照材料的细胞毒性,同时用传统的浸提液法测定这5种材料的细胞毒性。结果:牙本质屏障法测定的5种材料的细胞相对活性(%)分别为89.1±3.6、81.8±3.7、96.4±2.8、96.2±1.8、74.5±2.8;浸提液法测定的5种材料的浸提原液细胞相对活性(%)分别为35.6±5.2、72.9±4.3、91.5±1.3、90.2±2.6、59.3±2.6。结论:牙本质屏障可以显著减少充填材料对细胞的毒性作用,牙本质屏障法更能反映充填材料的体内细胞毒性。     

����׮ǻԤ����ͬ���ܷ�ռ����������ܱȽ��о�

目的评价即刻桩腔预备后采用AH-plus、Cortisomol及氧化锌丁香油湖剂3种根管封闭剂的根尖封闭临床价值。方法选取2010年6—9月于周口市第二人民医院口腔科因正畸拔除的健康上颌单根管牙齿60颗,以ProTaper手用镍钛根管锉逐步深入法根管预备后,随机分为3组,每组20颗。分别用AH-plus糊剂、Cortisomol糊剂、氧化锌丁香油糊剂加牙胶尖侧向加压法进行根管充填,根充后即刻桩腔预备,染料渗透法测量根尖微渗漏距离并进行统计学分析。结果氧化锌丁香油组、Cortisomol组和AH-plus组微渗漏长度分别为(1.731±0.162)mm、(1.316±0.115)mm、(1.238±0.156)mm,各组间差异有统计学意义(F=66.1174,P<0.01);氧化锌丁香油组的微渗漏值高于AH-plus组(q=14.924)和Cortisomol组(q=12.56),差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);AH-plus组与Cortisomol组差异无统计学意义(q=2.364,P>0.05)。结论即刻桩腔预备后AH-plus和Cortisomol糊剂的根尖封闭能力优于氧化锌丁香油糊剂,AH-plus和Cortisomol糊剂的根尖封闭能力无差异,是较理想的根管封闭剂。     

Cytotoxicity of new resin-, calcium hydroxide- and silicone-based root canal sealers on fibroblasts derived from human gingiva and L929 cell lines

AIM: To assess ex vivo the cytotoxic effects of five new root canal sealers (RC Sealer, Epiphany, EndoREZ, GuttaFlow and Acroseal) and three existing products (AH Plus, RoekoSeal and Apexit) using primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGF) and a mouse fibroblast cell line, L929. METHODOLOGY: Eight samples of each sealer were fabricated in sterile cylindrical Teflon blocks, 4.4 mm diameter and 2 mm height and then divided into two groups, fresh and aged specimens. Extraction of fresh specimens was carried out after setting whilst aged specimens were placed in Petri dishes and kept in a humid chamber at 37 degrees C for 7 days before extraction in cell culture medium using the ratio 1.25 cm(2) mL(-1). Undiluted eluates were used for the dimethylthiazol diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay with HGF and L-929. Morphology of HGF cells was also examined by an inverted microscope using undiluted eluates of the sealers. The results were analysed using a two-tailed t-test (alpha = 0.05) between groups. RESULTS: Resin-based (Epiphany and EndoREZ) and calcium hydroxide-based (Apexit and Acroseal) sealers were significantly more cytotoxic than other sealers (P<0.05). However, L929 cells were more sensitive to Apexit and EndoREZ than HGF cells. RC Sealer showed mild cytotoxicity to HGF at both setting times. AH Plus did not exert any cytotoxic effect to HGF and aged specimens appeared to induce cellular proliferation. RoekoSeal and GuttaFlow also demonstrated mild cytotoxicity. GuttaFlow was slightly more cytotoxic to both cultures, especially when tested fresh. CONCLUSIONS: Toxicity varied but RC Sealer and GuttaFlow were the least toxic new sealers.     

Toxicity evaluation of root canal sealers in vitro

AIM: To compare the toxicity of methacrylate resin-based root canal sealers with sealers based on epoxy resin and silicone by two-well established cell culture methods. METHODOLOGY: Specimens of AH Plus, EndoREZ, RoekoSeal and Epiphany were prepared for direct contact in the Millipore filter diffusion test and as extracts in the MTT assay. Mouse fibroblasts (L929) were used as toxicity targets. Differences in cytotoxicity between fresh and set specimens and between the extracts of root canal sealers were determined by t-test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: In the filter diffusion test, freshly mixed Epiphany and AH Plus were rated severely toxic and RoekoSeal and EndoREZ nontoxic. When set, Epiphany was moderately toxic, whereas AH Plus, RoekoSeal and EndoREZ were nontoxic. Epiphany was significantly more toxic than RoekoSeal and EndoREZ (P < 0.05). In the MTT assay with set specimens, Epiphany was rated severely toxic; AH Plus and RoekoSeal slightly toxic; and EndoREZ nontoxic. Epiphany was significantly more toxic than the other three materials in this test (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The multi-methacrylate resin-based (Epiphany) root canal sealer was significantly more toxic to L-929 cells than the silicone-based Roeko Seal and the single methacrylate-based EndoREZ root canal sealers. AH Plus showed intermediate toxicity.     

Long-term cytotoxic effects of contemporary root canal sealers

Objectives:

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of root canal sealers on the cytotoxicity of 3T3 fibroblasts during a period of 5 weeks.

Material and Methods:

Fibroblasts (3T3, 1x10⁵ cells per well) were incubated with elutes of fresh specimens from eight root canal sealers (AH Plus, Epiphany, Endomethasone N, EndoReZ, MTA Fillapex, Pulp Canal Sealer EWT, RoekoSeal and Sealapex) and with elutes of the same specimens for 5 succeeding weeks after immersing in simulated body fluid. The cytotoxicity of all root canal sealers was determined using the MTT assay. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey''s test.

Results:

RoekoSeal was the only sealer that did not show any cytotoxic effects (p<0.05). All the other tested sealers exhibited severe toxicity initially (week 0). MTA Fillapex remained moderately cytotoxic after the end of experimental period. Toxicity of the other tested sealers decreased gradually over time. The evaluated root canal sealers presented varying degrees of cytotoxicity, mainly in fresh mode.

Conclusions:

RoekoSeal had no cytotoxic effect both freshly mixed and in the other tested time points. MTA Fillapex was associated with significantly less cell viability when compared to the other tested root canal sealers.     

The cytotoxicity of RoekoSeal and AH plus compared during different setting periods

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxicity of the root canal sealers RoekoSeal Automix (RSA) and AH Plus in vitro on human cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cells and mouse skin fibroblasts (L929). The sealers were covered with a 3 x 10(4) cell suspension 1 h, 24 h, 48 h, 7 days and 1 month after mixing. Four samples and respective controls without sealer were prepared. After 5 days of incubation, the number of cells was determined using an electronic counter; the number of viable cells was determined under light microscopy following the addition of nigrosin dye. The experiment was repeated twice for each sealer and each period. AH Plus was significantly more cytotoxic after 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h, compared to the 7 day and 1 month setting period on both cell lines. RoekoSeal had no cytotoxic effect on either cell line at any setting time.     

Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of the epoxy resin-based root canal sealer AH plus

Previous studies with four rapid in vitro and in vivo test systems have shown that the epoxy resin-based root canal sealer AH26 may be genotoxic and cytotoxic (9). The purpose of this study was to determine the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of the new resinous root canal sealer AH Plus by means of the growth inhibition test with primary human periodontal ligament fibroblasts and permanent 3T3 monolayers, the procaryotic umu test, the eucaryotic DNA synthesis inhibition test, and the in vivo alkaline filter elution test. In addition, Ames tests were performed with extracts from AH Plus. AH Plus caused only slight or no cellular injuries. Furthermore, no genotoxicity and mutagenicity were revealed by AH Plus. These data should be taken into consideration when deciding about a root canal sealer.     

Tissue response to an epoxy resin-based root canal sealer

Abstract— Thc objective of the present study was to evaluate two different types of root canal sealers: AH Plus (an epoxy resin-based sealer) and Fill Canal (a zinc oxide-eugenol based sealer). A total of 34 root canals with vital pulp from dogs' premolars were used. After instrumentation, the root canals were filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus or gutta-percha and Fill Canal sealers using a classical technique of lateral condensation. After histological processing, the sections were stained with hematosylincosin or Mallory's trichrome stain. Inflammatory cells or areas of necrosis were not associated with AH Plus. Hard tissue formation apically to the material was observed in 14 specimens. The Fill Canal sealer presented an inflammatory response of moderate intensity in the periapical region, mainly adjacent to the material.     

Tissue response to an epoxy resin-based root canal sealer

The objective of the present study was to evaluate two different types of root canal sealers: AH Plus (an epoxy resin-based sealer) and Fill Canal (a zinc oxide-eugenol based sealer). A total of 34 root canals with vital pulp from dogs' premolars were used. After instrumentation, the root canals were filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus or gutta-percha and Fill Canal sealers using a classical technique of lateral condensation. After histological processing, the sections were stained with hematoxylineosin or Mallory's trichrome stain. Inflammatory cells or areas of necrosis were not associated with AH Plus. Hard tissue formation apically to the material was observed in 14 specimens. The Fill Canal sealer presented an inflammatory response of moderate intensity in the periapical region, mainly adjacent to the material.     

Lactate dehydrogenase leakage of hepatocytes with AH26 and AH Plus sealer treatments

Numerous root canals filling materials are available in the field of dentistry, based on various formulas that contain a variety of different and partly mutagenic components, such as epoxy resin sealers, Ca(OH)2-based materials, and zinc oxide-eugenol cements. AH Plus root canal sealer will not release formaldehyde according to the manufacturer, although AH26 does. The purpose of this study was to analyze the leakage of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) from rat hepatocytes after treatment with AH26 and AH Plus root canal sealers in vitro. Hepatocytes from male Sprague-Dawley rats were used to test the cytotoxicity of AH26 and AH Plus. The root canal sealers were mixed and then dissolved in the dimethyl sulfoxide to final concentrations of 0.01%, 0.04%, and 0.1% (wt/vol), with a dimethyl sulfoxide concentration of < 0.05%. Dosage-dependent and time-dependent lactate dehydrogenase leakage values were measured and tested by one-way ANOVA. The results showed that both AH26 and AH Plus are toxic to rat hepatocytes. At a low concentration, AH26 had a higher toxicity than AH Plus to rat hepatocytes.     

Comparative in vivo analysis of the sealing ability of three endodontic sealers in dog teeth after post-space preparation

This study compared the sealing ability of RoekoSeal, AH Plus and EndoRez in dog premolars after post-space preparation and exposure to the oral environment. Seventy-four root canals were cleaned, shaped and filled with gutta-percha and one of the sealers. Post spaces were prepared with about 4-mm root canal filling remaining in the apex. Teeth were sealed for 24 h for sealer setting. Teeth were exposed to the oral environment for 45 days. The dogs were killed and root canals were soaked in India ink and sealed for 96 h. The teeth were cleared, and leakage was measured under stereoscopy. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for analysis. A significant difference was found between EndoRez and RoekoSeal groups (P < 0.05). EndoRez had lower leakage values than RoekoSeal after 45-day exposure to the oral environment. No statistic difference was found in the comparison of AH Plus with the other sealers under study.     

Effect of root canal sealers on human periodontal ligament fibroblast viability: ex vivo study

The aim of the study was to compare ex vivo the toxic effects of six root canal sealers immediately after mixing or setting on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts (HPdLF). Freshly mixed (I group) or set (allowed to dry for 24 h) (II group) specimens of AH Plus Jet (AH), Apexit Plus (AP), MTA Fillapex (FL), GuttaFlow (GF), MetaSEAL Soft (META), and Tubli-Seal (TS) were prepared. HPdLF were exposed for 24 h to the specimens. 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazolo-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay was used to examine the effect of the root canal sealers on mitochondrial metabolic activity. Fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-annexin V (AnV) and propidium iodide staining followed by flow cytometry was used to identify the effects of the materials on cell apoptosis/necrosis. Statistical analyses were performed by one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc tests, and significance was determined at P < 0.05. Most materials from the two groups reduced the viability of the cultured cells compared with the control group (P < 0.05). Statistical analysis showed significant differences in HPdLF viability between the individual materials in each group (P < 0.001). AH and AP induced a significant increase in the percentage of apoptotic cells, while TS, FL, and META elevated the proportion of necrotic cells compared with other materials and the controls (p < 0.05). The cytotoxic effects of the tested root canal sealers (both fresh and set) on HPdLF varied. Both forms of sealers were able to cause toxic effects by inducing apoptosis and necrosis in HPdLF. The cytotoxicity of FL, META, TS was mainly associated with necrosis, while AH and AP with apoptosis.