不同冲洗方法与机用镍钛锉结合应用对根管壁的清洁作用

目的 应用扫描电镜来观察四种不同冲洗方法与机用镍钛锉结合预备根管，对根管壁的清洁效果。方法 将40颗前牙分成4组，采用不同的冲洗方法：A组：生理盐水．B组：2．5％次氯酸钠；C组：Glyde File Prep和2．5％次氯酸钠交替冲洗；D组：2．5％次氯酸钠冲洗，预备完成后，用无菌纸尖蘸上次氯酸钠和Glyde File Prep交替处理根尖区。在根管的三个不同深度采用扫描电镜记录牙本质碎屑、玷污层和牙本质小管情况。结果 A、B组与C、D比较组存在着明显的增厚的玷污层，开放的小管数目也明显减少，A组样本与其它冲洗方法组有统计学差异。结论 Glyde File Prep与机用镍钛锉合用预备根管能获得良好的术前清洗效果。     

Light and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of Glyde File Prep in smear layer removal

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of Glyde File Prep used in conjunction with sodium hypochlorite irrigation in the removal of smear layer produced during root canal instrumentation. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-nine extracted human teeth with single root canals were used. Access cavities were prepared and the teeth divided into three groups of 13 teeth each. Each group was treated by one of the three different regimes of irrigation and conditioning during root canal instrumentation. Group A: 0.5 mL of 1% NaOCl irrigation after each file size with an additional final irrigation of 10 mL 1% NaOCl; group B: 0.5 mL of 1% NaOCl irrigation after each file size with an additional final irrigation of 10 mL 17% EDTA; group C: Glyde File Prep coated on each instrumentation file used in conjunction with 0.5 mL 1% NaOCl irrigation after each file size and an additional final irrigation of 10 mL 1% NaOCl. The teeth were then longitudinally grooved and sectioned. Root canal cleanliness was evaluated with the aid of a Nikon light microscope (x40 and x100) and scanning electron microscope (x1000 and x3000). The debris scores obtained at three canal regions were compared statistically within the same group and among different groups using repeated measurements of analysis of variance (anova) with Bonferroni adjustments and anova with posthoc Tukey HSD, respectively. RESULTS: The canals treated with EDTA and Glyde File Prep were significantly cleaner than those treated with NaOCl alone. The apical region of the root canals generally displayed more residual smear layer, but the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Used in conjunction with NaOCl irrigation, Glyde File Prep was effective in removing smear layer produced during root canal instrumentation.     

Removal of the smear layer from flattened canals using different chemical substances

This study used scanning electron microscopy to evaluate the flattened root canals of human mandibular incisors cleaned with nickel-titanium instruments and different chemical substances. Teeth were selected and divided randomly into five groups (n = 10) according to the chemical substances used in the biomechanical preparation: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (Group 1), 5.25% sodium hypochlorite plus a final irrigation with 17% EDTAC (Group 2), EDTA gel combined with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (Group 3), 2% chlorhexidine gel (Group 4), and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite combined with Glyde File Prep gel (Group 5). Data analysis showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) among groups. Groups 1 and 5 were similar statistically (p > 0.001) and displayed a higher amount of smear layer on canal walls. Samples from Groups 2, 3, and 4 revealed root canal walls without smear layer and exposed dentin tubules. Among the associations tested in this study, 5.25% sodium hypochlorite solution combined with 17% EDTAC, 5.25% sodium hypochlorite combined with EDTA gel, and 2% chlorhexidine gel all were effective substances for removing the smear layer from flattened root canals.     

Debris Remaining in the Apical Third of Root Canals after Chemomechanical Preparation by Using Sodium Hypochlorite and Glyde: An In Vivo Study

Introduction

During chemomechanical instrumentation, several liquid or paste substances are used to ease the action of the files and to eliminate debris and the smear layer. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the use of a paste containing EDTA during cleaning and shaping of the root canal helps to eliminate debris.

Methods

Twenty root canals in dog teeth were instrumented by a crown-down technique by using nickel-titanium rotary files. In 10 root canals (group A), sodium hypochlorite was used during instrumentation, followed by a final irrigation with 17% liquid EDTA. In another 10 canals (group B), sodium hypochlorite was again used as the irrigating solution, but Glyde File Prep paste was used with every instrument, and a final irrigation with EDTA was also carried out. Two additional teeth were used as positive and 2 as negative controls. The jaws were prepared for histologic evaluation.

Results

In group A where Glyde was not used during cleaning and shaping, little or no debris was found in the apical third of the instrumented root canals; however; in group B in which Glyde File Prep paste was used during chemomechanical instrumentation, moderate to high accumulation of debris was observed in the apical third.

Conclusions

The use of Glyde File Prep paste during rotary mechanical instrumentation favors the accumulation of debris in the apical third of the root canals. Irrigation with NaOCl and a final flush with EDTA by means of a small-gauge needle with simultaneous aspiration led to less accumulation of debris than in the Glyde File Prep group (P < .05).     

The effects of sodium hypochlorite (5.25%), Chlorhexidine (2%), and Glyde File Prep on the bond strength of MTA-dentin

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of sodium hypochlorite (5.25%), chlorhexidine (2%), and Glyde File Prep on the bond strengths of MTA-dentin in vitro. Standardized dentin disks were prepared and the central hole in each disk was filled with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). The specimens were randomly divided into four groups to be immersed in saline, 5.25% NaOCl, 2% chlorhexidine, and Glyde File Prep for 2 hours. The bond strengths of MTA-dentin were measured with a material testing system (MTS) and the fractured surfaces on the root walls were observed by scanning electron microscopy. Compared with the control group, the bond strengths were significantly lower in Glyde File Prep group (p < 0.05) and there was no significant difference in the chlorhexidine group or in the NaOCl group (p > 0.05). This study suggested that Glyde File Prep could negatively affect the bond strengths of MTA-dentin.     

EDTA凝胶与溶液对根管壁结构影响的比较研究

目的 研究EDTA凝胶与EDTA溶液在不同作用时间下,对根管玷污层及根管壁结构的影响.方法 采用因正畸需要新鲜拔除的健康上颌恒前磨牙7颗,常规根管预备后,取根中1/3段沿牙体长轴剖开,每根管分为两部分,每颗牙的两根管共获得4个标本,取其中1颗牙的4个标本作为对照组,其余每颗牙的4个标本分别纳入4个实验组.A组:15% EDTA水溶液冲洗1 min;B组: 15?TA水溶液冲洗5 min;C组:格兰凝胶涂布1 min;D组:格兰凝胶涂布5 min.扫描电镜观察各组根管内玷污层情况及牙本质结构的变化.结果 15?TA水溶液处理1 min即可有效去除根管玷污层,处理5 min则会引起管周和管间牙本质轻微脱矿;格兰根管凝胶处理1 min和5 min均能有效去除根管内玷污层,但均会引起牙本质过度脱矿和腐蚀.结论 格兰根管凝胶和EDTA水溶液均可去除根管玷污层,但持续作用于根管壁的时间不应超过1 min,以避免管壁过度脱矿.     

不同方法预备根管对根管治疗后牙齿冠渗漏的影响

目的采用3种不同方法预备根管,评价其对根管治疗后牙齿冠渗漏的影响。方法48颗单根管离体牙随机分为4组,使用不同的根管预备方法去除根管壁的玷污层。A组为对照组,采用生理盐水和过氧化氢溶液冲洗根管;B组采用乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）凝胶和5.25%次氯酸钠溶液冲洗;C组采用Odontoson-M型超声波治疗仪荡洗;D组采用脉冲Nd: YAG激光照射。每组取2颗牙,于扫描电子显微镜（SEM）下观察冠部玷污层的去除情况;其余10颗牙采用Obtura Ⅱ高温注射式热牙胶垂直加压法充填根管,氧化锌丁香油黏固剂封闭根管口,浸于质量浓度20 g·L-1亚甲基蓝溶液中染色7 d,脱水脱钙制作透明牙标本,体视显微镜下测量染料渗入的深度。结果SEM观察：A组
整个根管内壁被覆玷污层及大量碎屑,牙本质小管被堵塞;B组与C组根管内壁清洁,玷污层消失,牙本质小管开放;D组根管内壁牙本质小管封闭或半封闭,玷污层熔融消失。A、B、C、D组染料渗入深度分别为（2.15±0.38）、（1.75±0.28）、（2.04±0.40）、（1.73±0.36）mm。A组的渗入深度明显高于B、D组,其差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论使用不同的方法预备根管去除玷污层,可以减少根管治疗后牙齿的冠渗漏。     

MTAN用于桩道清洁能力的实验研究

目的:研究MTAN在桩道制备后用于去除玷污层的能力。方法:经筛选得到符合要求的40颗单根管前磨牙,于釉牙骨质界冠方2mm处截去牙冠。根管预备、根管充填、桩道制备后随机均分为5组,分别用以下溶液进行桩道冲洗。A组:10mL0.9%盐水;B组:2.5mL3%NaOCl溶液+2.5mL18%EDTA溶液;C组:5mL3%NaOCl溶液+5mL18%EDTA溶液;D组:5mLMTAN溶液;E组10mLMTAN溶液。每组冲洗后,均用10mL0.9%盐水冲洗。在场发射扫描电镜下观察桩道内壁形态,用Peters’标准进行计分,记录数据并统计分析。结果:A组未能去除玷污层,牙本质小管口全部消失。B组残留大量厚的玷污层,较多的牙本质小管被堵塞;C组残存的玷污层覆盖面积达50%,牙本质小管部分开放。D组和E组玷污层大多数被去除,牙本质小管口多数开放。结论:MTAN可有效去除桩道预备后的玷污层。     

Efficacy of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite for root canal irrigation.

Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) has been recommended for irrigation during root canal preparation. This investigation used scanning electron microscopy to examine instrumented and uninstrumented surfaces in the middle third of root canals following the use of several concentrations of NaOCl (5.25%, 2.5%, 1.0%, and 0.5%). NaOCl was delivered with either an endodontic irrigation needle or an ultrasonic device. All of the concentrations of NaOCl with either delivery system were very effective in flushing out loose debris from the root canals. A smear layer with some exposed dentinal tubules was seen on all instrumented surfaces regardless of concentration of NaOCl or irrigation device. NaOCl in concentrations of 5.25%, 2.5%, and 1% completely removed pulpal remnants and predentin from the uninstrumented surfaces. Although 0.5% NaOCl removed the majority of pulpal remnants and predentin from the uninstrumented surfaces, it left some fibrils on the surface.     

Effect of Different Irrigation on Smear Layer Removal after Post Space Preparation

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different irrigating solutions on smear layer removal and dentinal tubule opening on root canal surfaces after post space preparation and to study whether additional ultrasonic irrigation has any effect on smear layer removal. Forty-eight anterior teeth were treated endodontically. After post space preparation, they were assigned to six groups: group 1, EDTA; group 2, EDTA with ultrasonic activation; group 3, sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); group 4, NaOCl with ultrasonic activation; group 5, sodium chloride (NaCl); and group 6, NaCl with ultrasonic activation. Specimens were examined under a field-emission scanning electron microscope and scored for debris removal and dentinal tubule opening at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canal. The results showed that EDTA performed significantly better than NaCl and NaOCl in smear layer removal and dentinal tubule opening. Additional ultrasonic irrigation did not improve smear layer removal significantly.     

An In Vitro Evaluation of Passive Ultrasonic Agitation of Different Irrigants on Smear Layer Removal After Post Space Preparation: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

This study evaluated the removal of debris and smear layer after post space preparation using different irrigations and passive ultrasonic agitation. Sixty human premolars were decoronated and post space prepared after endodontic therapy. The samples were then randomly divided into three experimental groups (Groups A, B, C) and one control group (Group D) with fifteen samples in each group. Groups A and B samples were treated with 10 % citric acid and 17 % ethylenediamintetraacetic acid (EDTA), respectively and passive ultrasonic agitation was done, rinsed with sodium hypochlorite and finally flushed with saline. Group C samples were conditioned with 36 % phosphoric acid and then rinsed with saline. The control group was treated with 3 % sodium hypochlorite, passive ultrasonic agitation done and flushed with saline. The samples were sectioned and evaluated for debris and smear layer removal under scanning electron microscope. 10 % citric acid showed the best removal of smear layer when compared with 17 % EDTA and 36 % phosphoric acid, but was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The difference in scoring for debris and smear layer removal in the coronal, middle and apical third of post space of experimental groups in comparison with control group was statistically significant (p < 0.001).     

The Effect of EDTA with and without Ultrasonics on Removal of the Smear Layer

This study evaluated in vitro effectiveness of 17% EDTA with and without ultrasonics on smear layer removal. One hundred and five extracted premolars randomly divided into seven groups were instrumented with different final irrigating protocols: group A (Sal3US), saline for 3 minutes with ultrasonics; groups B (Na3) and C (Na3US), 1% sodium hypochlorite for 3 minutes without and with ultrasonics, respectively; groups D (ED3) and E (ED3US), 17% EDTA for 3 minutes without and with ultrasonics, respectively; and groups F (ED1) and G (ED1US), 17% EDTA for 1 minute without and with ultrasonics, respectively. Specimens were examined under scanning electron microscope and scored for smear layer and debris removal. Statistical analysis showed that groups with EDTA and ultrasonic irrigation, groups E (ED3US) and G (ED1US), had significantly more specimens with complete smear layer and debris removal. There was no significant difference between groups E (ED3US) and G (ED1US). A 1-minute application of combined use of EDTA and ultrasonics is efficient for smear layer and debris removal in the apical region of the root canal.     

不同冲洗液对根尖溢出碎屑的影响

目的： 比较根管预备后不同冲洗液对根尖溢出碎屑的影响。方法：58颗正畸拔除的单根牙随机分为4组,常规根管预备后,采用不同冲洗液冲洗,对照组(A组)：7颗、蒸馏水冲洗;实验组每组17颗,B组：1% NaOCl冲洗;C组：2.5% NaOCl冲洗;D组：17% EDTA冲洗。收集冲洗后的冲洗液,通过紫外可见分光光度计检测吸光度（OD）值,比较其根尖溢出碎屑的含量。采用SPSS 13.0软件包对结果进行统计学分析。结果：冲洗前、后的OD差值分别为对照组A组0.012、B组0.122、C组0.393、D组0.021,B、C、D 3组冲洗前、后的差值与对照组相比,均有显著差异（P<0.05）。其中,C组最高,与B、D 2组相比,均差异显著（P<0.05）。结论：冲洗液能增加根尖溢出碎屑的含量,2.5%NaClO冲洗液产生较多的根尖溢出碎屑,1% NaOCl、17%EDTA溶液是临床上较理想的冲洗液。     

XP-endo Finisher锉对根管内壁玷污层清除效果的体外研究

目的 评估XP-endo Finisher（XPF）锉与被动超声冲洗（PUI）对根管内壁玷污层的清除效果。方法 选择60颗离体单直根管下颌前磨牙,距根尖16 mm处截冠,采用S3镍钛锉预备到3S,根据终末处理方式不同将样本随机分成6组。A组：3 mL 3%次氯酸钠溶液联合XPF处理1 min;B组：3 mL 3%次氯酸钠溶液联合XPF处理1 min,再用4 mL 17%乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）溶液冲洗1 min;C组：3 mL 3%次氯酸钠溶液联合PUI处理1 min;D组：3 mL 3%次氯酸钠溶液联合PUI处理1 min,再用4 mL 17%EDTA溶液冲洗1 min;E组：3 mL 3%次氯酸钠溶液30号侧方冲洗针冲洗1 min;F组：3 mL 3%次氯酸钠溶液30号侧方冲洗针冲洗1 min,再用4 mL 17%EDTA溶液冲洗1 min。采用扫描电子显微镜观察玷污层形态,并比较根尖1/3区、根中1/3区牙本质小管开口数。结果 A、C、E组实验样本整个根管壁都有玷污层覆盖,A组与C组牙本质小管开口数明显高于E组（P<0.05）,而A组与C组的差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;F组根中区、B组和D组根尖区有少量玷污层覆盖,牙本质小管开放或半开放;F组根尖区可见玷污层,牙本质小管封闭或半封闭;B和D组根中区根管壁玷污层均被有效去除;在根尖1/3区和根中1/3区,B组与D组牙本质小管开口数高于其他4组（P<0.05）,而B组和D组间的差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 XPF锉对根管内壁玷污层的清洁效果与PUI无明显差异,可用于根管预备后提高根管清洁效果。     

The use of ultrasound and an EDTA-urea peroxide compound in the cleansing of root canals. An SEM study

Abstract — Thirty-two human teeth with constricted root canals were prepared using an EDTA-urea peroxide compound as an aid to root canal instrumentation. A final irrigation of 3 per cent sodium hypochlorite with up to five minutes of indirect ultrasound was not sufficient to remove the debris and smear layer from the canal wall when viewed under the scanning electron microscope. It was suggested that the wax-like smear layer could have clinical benefits and required further investigation.     

Sealing root canals with low-viscosity resins in vitro: a scanning electron microscopy study of canal cleansing and resin adaption

Low-viscosity resins of the fissure sealant type have been suggested in the literature as having potential for use as root canal filling materials. A low-viscosity resin may seal a root canal by flowing into clean dentinal tubules after smear layer removal. This investigation with scanning electron microscopy examines the efficacy of two methods of root canal preparation and the effectiveness of different chemicals on smear layer removal. Ultrasonic preparation with 0.25% sodium hypochlorite solution and final agitation with 50% citric acid solution were found to produce a very clean canal wall, free of smear layer in coronal and middle parts. However, low-viscosity resin used in conditions that aimed to simulate in vivo conditions failed to penetrate open dentinal tubules to a significant extent. On the basis of these observations made with scanning electron microscopy, low-viscosity resins would not seem suitable as root canal filling materials, because they are unlikely to form a satisfactory adaption to the canal wall. In addition, if treatment fails, these resins are impossible to remove from a root canal without much destruction of tooth substance.     

Comparison between high concentration EDTA (24%) and low concentration EDTA (3%) with surfactant upon removal of smear layer after rotary instrumentation: a SEM study

This in vitro study compare cleanliness of tooth canal walls regarding smear layer after final treatment with 24% ethylenediaminetetraaceticacid (EDTA) and 3% EDTA with or without surfactant. Sixty extracted teeth, randomly distributed into four groups, were prepared using ProFile instruments (DENTSPLY, Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and subjected to different final irrigation solutions: group A, 24% EDTA; group B, 3% EDTA with surfactant; group C (positive control), 3% EDTA; and group D (negative control), 0.5% sodium hypochlorite. Roots were sectioned, examined and evaluated under scanning electron microscope; microphotographs were taken for the coronal, middle and apical third of each specimen. Statistical analysis showed no difference regarding presence of smear layer between test groups in the coronal and apical sections. They were cleaned in the coronal sections and uncleaned in the apical sections. In the middle section, group B was significantly cleaner (p < 0.05) than the other groups. In conclusion, surfactant in combination with EDTA did not improve root canal cleanliness and there is no difference between different EDTA concentrations in removing the smear layer.     

The effect of application time of EDTA and NaOCl on intracanal smear layer removal: an SEM analysis

AIM: To verify, under the scanning electron microscope (SEM), the influence of irrigation time with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) on intracanal smear layer removal. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-one extracted human permanent teeth with single straight root canals were included. The root canals of the teeth were instrumented and, at the end of preparation, were irrigated with 3 mL of 15% EDTA, followed by 3 mL of 1% NaOCl for 1 min (group 1), for 3 min (group 2), and for 5 min (group 3). The canals of teeth in group 4 (control) did not receive the final irrigation. The teeth were sectioned longitudinally and prepared for an SEM. The dentinal wall of cervical, middle and apical thirds was graded according to the amount of debris and smear layer remaining on the walls. The results were analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Conover-Inman tests. RESULTS: In all the canals of experimental groups irrigation with EDTA and NaOCl completely removed the smear layer from the cervical and middle thirds. In the apical third, the dentine surface were partially covered, particularly in the teeth of group 1, where there was significantly more smear layer when compared with the other thirds in the same group (P<0.007). However, the Kruskal-Wallis test showed overall that there were no significant differences between groups 1, 2 and 3 (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: In this limited laboratory study, canal irrigation with EDTA and NaOCl for 1, 3 and 5 min were equally effective in removing the smear layer from the canal walls of straight roots.     

Evaluation of smear layer removal by EDTAC and sodium hypochlorite with ultrasonic agitation

AIM: To evaluate smear layer removal by different irrigating solutions under ultrasonic agitation. METHODOLOGY: Twenty recently extracted mandibular incisors with a single root canal were divided into four equal groups. Three groups were instrumented using the modified double-flared technique, the fourth remained unprepared. Each group was irrigated with either distilled water, 1.0% sodium hypochlorite alone or associated with 15% EDTAC between each file size. The final group was not instrumented but irrigated with 1.0% sodium hypochlorite and 15% EDTAC. A size 15 file energised by ultrasound was used with small amplitude filing movements against the canal walls in all groups. The teeth were split longitudinally and the roots measured to provide three sections of the same size (cervical, middle and apical). Samples were examined under the scanning electron microscope and assessed for the amount of smear layer by three independent and calibrated examiners. The scoring system ranged from 1 (no smear layer) to 4 (all areas covered by smear layer). Due to the non-parametric nature of the data, Friedman's test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Canal walls were covered with smear layer in the group irrigated with 1% sodium hypochlorite alone and the group irrigated with distilled water. Canals irrigated with 1.0% sodium hypochlorite associated with 15% EDTAC had less smear layer throughout the canal (P < 0.001). There were no statistical differences for the amount of smear layer found on the cervical, middle and apical thirds when each group was analysed separately. CONCLUSIONS: Under ultrasonic agitation, sodium hypochlorite associated with EDTAC removed the smear layer from root canal walls, whereas irrigation with distilled water or 1.0% sodium hypochlorite alone did not remove smear layer.     

Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or ultrasonics on removal of smear layer

This study compared the in vitro efficacy of Smear Clear (Sybron Endo, CA), a 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) solution with surfactants, to 17% EDTA, with and without the use of ultrasonics, in removal of the smear layer. Seventy-five extracted teeth, randomly distributed into 5 test groups, were prepared by using ProFile rotary instruments (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and subjected to different final irrigating regimes; group A, 1% sodium hypochlorite; group B, 17% EDTA; group C, 17% EDTA with ultrasonics; group D, Smear Clear; and group E, Smear Clear with ultrasonics. Samples were examined under the scanning electron microscope and scored for debris and smear layer removal. Statistical analysis showed that groups D and E did not perform significantly better than groups B and C. Group C performed significantly better than group B. Addition of surfactants to EDTA in Smear Clear did not result in better smear layer removal. The use of ultrasonics with 17% EDTA improved smear layer removal.