3种根管糊剂根尖封闭性能的评价

目的　体外评价iRoot SP、AH Plus、Vitapex 3种根管糊剂的根尖封闭能力。方法　 离体单根管恒牙45颗,随机分为3组,每组15颗;通过染色法微渗漏实验比较3种根管糊剂的根尖封闭能力,并通过扫描电镜观察根管壁与糊剂之间的结合特征。结果　 iRoot SP与AH Plus组的微渗漏值较小且两者无统计学差异,Vitapex糊剂组的微渗漏值最大,与其他两组有统计学差异(P<0.05)。扫描电镜下不同根管封闭剂与根管壁和牙胶间均观察到空隙存在。结论　 iRoot SP和AH Plus的根管封闭性能较Vitapex糊剂更佳。     

不同根管充填技术对椭圆形根管的根尖封闭效果

目的 探讨采用不同根管充填技术对椭圆形根管根尖封闭效果的影响.方法 选取近期拔除的椭圆形单根管前磨牙120颗随机分成6组,每组20颗,采用iRoot-SP和AH-Plus根管封闭剂,结合单尖充填法、连续波热牙胶垂直加压充填法、冷牙胶侧方加压充填法,即单尖iRoot组、热牙胶iRoot组、冷牙胶iRoot组、单尖AH组、热牙胶AH组、冷牙胶AH组,采用染料渗透法观察根尖的微渗漏情况.结果 热牙胶iRoot组、热牙胶AH组的根尖染料渗入深度明显小于单尖iRoot组、单尖AH组(P<0.05);热牙胶iRoot组、冷牙胶iRoot组尖染料渗入深度明显小于热牙胶AH组、冷牙胶AH组(P<0.05);其他的组间两两比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 热牙胶垂直加压技术可以使椭圆形根管达到更好的根尖封闭效果,且配合使用iRoot SP根管封闭剂的封闭效果较配合使用AH-Plus根管封闭剂好.     

根管封闭剂iRoot SP根尖封闭性能评价

目的:比较iRoot SP与AH plus 2种根管封闭剂的根尖封闭效果。方法:选择50颗近期拔除的单根管牙,随机分为2个实验组A、B(每组20颗),2个对照组C、D,C组为阳性对照组(n=5),D组为阴性对照组(n=5)。使用机用Protaper预备所有根管至F2,分别采用iRoot SP根管封闭剂加连续波充填技术(A组)、AH Plus根管封闭剂加连续波热充填技术(B组)充填根管。采用染料渗透法检测根尖微渗漏,对染料渗透的长度进行测量,采用SPSS13.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果:实验组A、实验组B、阳性对照组C、阴性对照组D的微渗透值分别为(1.46±0.21)mm、(1.52±0.22)mm、(10.75±1.28)mm、0 mm。实验组B的微渗漏值高于实验组A,但2组间无显著差异。结论:根管封闭剂iRoot sp的根尖封闭性能与AH Plus相似。     

生物根管封闭剂iRoot SP在根管根尖封闭中的应用评价

目的:分析生物根管封闭剂iRoot SP在扁形根管根尖封闭中的性能,为临床工作提供指导.方法:取48颗根管的近远中径与颊舌径之比小于0.5的单根管离体前磨牙,根管预备后,随机分为A、B、C3组,每组各16颗.分别选用Vitapex (A组)、AH Plus(B组)、iRoot SP(C组)作为根管封闭剂,结合连续波热牙胶垂直充填技术进行根管充填.所有样本经根尖染料渗透实验,采用透明牙技术,比较3组离体牙微渗漏情况,评价iRoot SP在扁形根管根尖封闭中的性能.采用SPSS19.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析.结果:A组染料渗入深度显著大于B、C组,差异具有显著性(P＜0.05);B、C组染料渗入深度相比,无显著差异(P＞0.05).结论:iRoot SP和AH Plus在扁形形根管根尖封闭中的性能接近,效果优于Vitapex根管充填糊剂.     

AH plus和iRoot SP用于热牙胶充填的根尖封闭性能研究

目的 利用体外模型比较热牙胶充填时,2种根管封闭剂AH plus和iRoot SP的根尖微渗漏情况,评估两种材料的根尖封闭性能.方法 离体牙30颗,根管预备后,随机分为2个实验组A和B,1个阳性对照组(C)和1个阴性对照组(D).其中实验组每组10颗离体牙,对照组每组5颗离体牙.分别选用AH plus(A组)和iRoo...     

iRoot SP单尖充填技术对根管治疗术后疼痛影响的临床研究

目的:研究iRoot SP单尖充填技术对无症状不可复性牙髓炎患者一次性根管治疗术后疼痛影响。方法:选择单颗下颌磨牙诊断为无症状不可复性牙髓炎患者72例,随机分为两组,实验组采用iRoot SP单尖充填技术,对照组采用AH Plus热牙胶垂直加压充填技术。所有患者采用一次法根管治疗,术后调查记录两组患者术后24 h、48 h、72 h以及7 d疼痛发生情况、疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale, VAS)以及根充质量。结果:两组患者的术后疼痛主要发生在48 h以内,两组患者各时间点疼痛发生率、VAS评分以及根管封闭剂挤出情况比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:iRoot SP单尖充填技术与AH Plus热牙胶垂直加压充填技术相比较,二者对无症状不可复性牙髓炎患者的术后疼痛影响相类似。     

三种根管封闭剂的根尖封闭性能体外比较研究

目的    在体外环境下比较C-Root SP、iRoot SP、AH-Plus 3种根管封闭剂的根尖封闭性能,以评价新型生物陶瓷类根管封闭剂C-Root SP的应用效果。方法    将80颗离体单根管牙使用Reciproc Blue机用镍钛锉预备根管,随机分为3个实验组（AH-Plus组、C-Root SP组、iRoot SP 组,每组15颗）和3个对照组（单纯牙胶充填组、阳性对照组各15颗,阴性对照组5颗）。3个实验组分别使用单尖法充填AH-Plus、C-Root SP、iRoot SP根管封闭剂,单纯牙胶充填组仅充填牙胶尖,阳性对照组和阴性对照组不做任何充填。使用染料渗透法对所有样本处理后纵向剖开根管,体视显微镜下测量染料渗透长度,比较各组染料渗透长度差异。结果    AH-Plus组、C-Root SP组、iRoot SP组、单纯牙胶充填组、阳性对照组的根管内均有染料渗入,染料渗透长度依次为（1.41 ± 0.40）、（1.32 ± 0.36）、（1.25 ± 0.42）、（4.12 ± 0.97）、（5.82 ± 0.54）mm。3个实验组的染料渗透长度差异均无统计学意义（均P > 0.05）,此3组的染料渗透长度均明显小于单纯牙胶充填组和阳性对照组（均P < 0.05）。阴性对照组无染料渗入。结论    C-Root SP根尖封闭性能良好,与iRoot SP、AH-Plus两种根管封闭剂的根尖封闭性能相近。     

三种因素对根管桩道预备后根尖封闭性影响的研究

目的:评价根管形态、根管充填方法、根管封闭剂三种因素对桩道预备后根管的根尖封闭性的影响.方法:本实验共选取45颗规则的直根管牙根及40颗椭圆形根管牙根,分为9组.其中实验组A组为规则的直根管,A1.iRoot SP+热牙胶(n=10),A2.iRoot SP+单尖法(n=10),A3:GuttaFlow2+热牙胶(n=...     

根管封闭剂iRoot SP和AH Plus与牙本质粘接强度的体外研究

目的:研究iRoot SP和AH Plus对根管内壁牙本质粘接强度的影响。方法:收集单根管牙60颗,随机分成iRoot SP和AH plus组(n=30),每组又随机分为3个小组并分别采用热牙胶法、单尖法、冷侧压法进行根管充填,1周后,将所有样本切成厚度1.00 mm的薄片,通过万能试验机计算推出强度,并用SPSS 22.0进行统计学分析,同时观察断裂方式并计算百分比。结果:iRoot SP和AH plus整体的粘接强度数值相近,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);iRoot SP结合单尖法根尖区粘接强度最高(8.38±3.91) MPa,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。各分组断裂方式占比大小均为：混合断裂>内聚断裂>界面断裂。结论:iRoot SP结合3种技术充填时均能达到相近甚至优于AH plus的粘接强度,以单尖法的根尖区粘接强度最高。断裂方式以混合断裂为主。     

根管截面形态对超声根尖倒预备效果的影响

目的 研究不同根管截面形态(椭网形和圆形)对超声根尖倒预备效果的影响.方法 选取直的单根管离体牙,根据根管截面形态分为椭圆形根管组和网形根管组,每组各20颗,分别进行根管预备和充填,截去根尖3 mm.采用超声工作尖进行根尖倒预备,在体式显微镜和扫描电镜下观测根尖窝洞形态规则性、残余牙胶量和窝洞清洁程度.结果 体式显微镜观测结果显示两组根尖窝洞形态规则性差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),椭圆形组中所有样本均可见牙胶残余,圆形组中70%的样本无牙胶残余,超声倒预备后残余牙胶量椭圆形根管组高于圆形根管组(P<0.01);电镜观测结果显示,圆形组85%的样本存在玷污层,95%的样本可见开放牙本质小管;椭圆形组中所有样本均有玷污层存在,仅40%的样本可见开放牙本质小管,根尖窝洞清洁程度椭圆形根管组低于圆形根管组(P<0.01).结论 超声根尖倒预备难以完全去除玷污层,椭圆形根管倒预备效果比圆形根管差.     

Sealer penetration and adaptation in the dentinal tubules: a scanning electron microscopic study

Introduction

Tubular penetration and adaptation of the sealer can determine the sealability of the root filling. The aim of this study was to assess, in vitro, the tubular adaptation and penetration depth and the adaptation to the root canal walls in the apical, middle, and coronal third of the root canal of 5 different sealers used in combination with softened gutta-percha cones.

Methods

Fifty-two single-rooted teeth were prepared and filled with 5 different sealers and softened gutta-percha cones. Thereafter, the roots were cross-sectioned and prepared for scanning electron microscopic evaluation. Adaptation of the sealer to the root canal and tubular walls and tubular penetration were assessed.

Results

AH Plus (Dentsply De Trey, Konstanz, Germany), an epoxy resin sealer, showed the best tubular adaptation and penetration.

Conclusions

The tubular penetration and adaptation varies with the different physical and chemical properties of the sealers used. AH Plus showed the most optimal tubular penetration and adaptation to the root canal wall of the sealers tested.     

The effect of calcium silicate-based sealer on the push-out bond strength of fibre posts

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the iRoot SP root canal sealer on the push‐out bond strength of fibre posts cemented with self‐adhesive resin cement. Methods:  Forty‐eight extracted maxillary incisors were randomly divided into four groups according to the tested sealer (n = 12): group 1 – control (only gutta‐percha points, no sealer); group 2 – AH Plus Jet (resin‐based sealer); group 3 – Endofill (zinc oxide‐eugenol‐based sealer); and group 4 – iRoot SP (calcium silicate‐based sealer). All root canals were filled with gutta‐percha, and groups 2–4 additionally received one of the sealers. Fibre posts were cemented with the self‐adhesive resin cement Clearfil SA Cement. The specimens were sectioned in the coronal, middle and apical regions, producing three slices of 1 mm thickness. The push‐out test was performed. All data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey tests (α = 0.05). Results:  No statistically significant differences were found between the control group, AH Plus Jet and iRoot SP (p > 0.05). The Endofill sealer showed significantly lower bond strength compared to the other sealers and the control group (p < 0.05). Conclusions:  The calcium silicate‐based sealer did not adversely affect the bond strength of the fibre posts cemented with self‐adhesive resin cement.     

The Effect of Primary Root Canal Treatment on Dentinal Tubule Penetration of Calcium Silicate–based Sealers during Endodontic Retreatment

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of previous root canal treatment on dentinal tubule penetration of calcium silicate–based sealers during endodontic retreatment and to compare 2 different (commonly used and modified) tubule penetration depth measurement techniques.MethodsThe crowns of mandibular premolar teeth were removed, and root canals were prepared (ProTaper Universal; Dentsply Sirona, York, PA) and obturated using AH Plus (AH; Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), MTA Fillapex (MTAF; Angelus, Londrina, Brazil), and WellRoot ST (WRST; Vericom, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea); 0.1% red Rhod-2 dye (Chemodex, St Gallen, Switzerland) was added to the sealers. After storage for 3 weeks (37°C, 100% humid), the following sealer combination subgroups were created (the sealer used during the primary root canal treatment/the sealer used during the retreatment, n = 8): AH/AH, AH/MTAF, and AH/WRST; MTAF/AH, MTAF/MTAF, and MTAF/WRST; and WRST/AH, WRST/MTAF, and WRST/WRST. Green Fluo-3 dye (0.1%) was added to the sealers during retreatment. Sealer penetration depths were measured at 8 points and averaged, and the ratio of the retreatment sealer to the initial sealer was recorded as the mean tubule penetration depth ratio in the first technique, whereas the percentage of the circumferential penetration area ratios of the retreatment and initial sealers was calculated in the second technique. Statistical analyses were performed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests.ResultsThe mean penetration depth of AH and MTFA was found to be higher at the coronal third region in the control groups (P < .05). Both methods showed a significant difference among the groups at the coronal and median regions (P < .05). The AH/WRST, MTAH/AH, MTAF/MTAF, MTAF/WRSTS, and WRST/WRST groups showed deeper tubule penetration (first technique, P = .01). Both techniques showed that the penetration depth of the sealers was the same at the apical region (P > .05), whereas a difference was found among the techniques at the coronal and median regions. The sealers used in the previous root canal treatment limited the penetration depth of the sealers used during the retreatment process (P < .05). When MTAF was used as the initial sealer, the penetration depth of the second sealer did not change, whereas if WRST was the initial sealer, the penetration depth of the sealers at the median and apical regions is negatively affected during the retreatment process (P < .05).ConclusionsPrevious root canal treatment affects the penetration depth of calcium silicate–based sealers. The use of AH Plus and MTA Fillapex during the retreatment process showed an advantage. Both measurement techniques showed similar performances at the apical region, whereas the results varied at the coronal and midcoronal regions; therefore, a more stable sealer penetration measurement technique is still necessary.     

The penetration of RealSeal primer and Tubliseal into root canal dentinal tubules: a confocal microscopic study

AIM: To compare penetration depth into dentinal tubules of RealSeal with that of a well-established endodontic sealer (Tubliseal) by means of confocal microscopy. METHODOLOGY: Twenty sound extracted, single-rooted premolars were selected. Following completion of root canal instrumentation, the teeth were divided into two groups using a stratified sampling method, ranking teeth according to size. In group 1, 10 teeth were filled with Gutta-percha and Tubliseal using cold lateral condensation. In group 2, 10 teeth were filled with RealSeal. Both sealers were labelled with Rhodamine B dye. The teeth were sectioned parallel to their long axis resulting in 20 specimens per group. Confocal microscopy was used to assess the penetration depths of the sealers at three sites for each specimen (coronal, middle and apical). Data were analysed statistically using Stata Release 9.1. RESULTS: The penetration depth of RealSeal in each one of the thirds of the root canal was found to be higher than that of Tubliseal (P < 0.05). The penetration depths of the two sealers was found to be significantly different (P = 0.001). The mean penetration value for the RealSeal group was 908.8 microm whereas the mean value for the Tubliseal group was 139.5 microm. CONCLUSIONS: The penetration depth of RealSeal into the root dentinal tubules is significantly greater than that of Tubliseal.     

The influence of the smear layer on dentinal tubule penetration depth by three different root canal sealers: an in vitro study

The effect of the smear layer on the penetration depth of three different root canal sealers into the dentinal tubules was examined in 64 recently extracted single-rooted teeth. After chemomechanical preparation, the samples were randomly divided in two equal groups. The smear layer remained intact in group A, whereas complete removal of the smear layer was performed in group B. Two roots from each group were used as controls. Ten roots from each group were obturated with laterally condensed gutta-percha points and sealers AH Plus, Apexit, and Roth 811, respectively. Examination in scanning electron microscope revealed that the smear layer obstructed all the sealers from penetrating dentinal tubules. In contrast, smear layer removal allowed the penetration of all sealers to occur to a varying depth. These findings suggest that smear layer plays an important role in sealer penetration into the dentinal tubules, as well as in the potential clinical implications.