iRoot SP��AH Plus�������ڸ�������Ч����Meta����

??Objective    To systematically evaluate the effect of iRoot SP and AH Plus paste in the treatment of root canal. Methods    Online databases including PubMed??EMBASE??the Cochrane Library??Web of Knowledge??and Chinese databases ??Wanfang database??VIP and CNKI?? were searched systematically up to February 2017. Randomized controlled trials and high-quality comparative studies were considered eligible for inclusion. Two qualified reviewers reviewed the original articles??evaluating qualities of articles??and extracting data independently. After heterogeneity test??Meta-analysis was performed. Results    In total??seven original clinical controlled trials were included??containing 493 teeth. iRoot SP paste could improve the immediate root canal quality ??OR=0.30??95%CI????0.10 ~ 0.85?????reduce the rate of postoperative pain ??OR=0.23??95%CI????0.06 ~ 0.89?????and decrease the apical leakage ??WMD=-0.13??95%CI????-0.22 ~ -0.05????. Conclusion    iRoot SP paste in root canal therapy can significantly alleviate pain??and the long-term curative effect is good??has better biological compatibility??which is an ideal root canal filling material. Because of the small number of the literatures included??which are all in China??it is necessary to include large sample??multicenter??randomized??double-blind??placebo-controlled trails to further confirm the clinical effect.     

iRoot BP Plus在成熟恒牙活髓保存治疗中的疗效分析

目的 评价iRoot BP Plus用于成熟恒牙活髓保存治疗(直接盖髓术和部分活髓切断术)的临床疗效.方法 选取120例共120颗因龋露髓成熟恒牙牙髓炎患者,随机分为A(直接盖髓术)、B(部分活髓切断术)和C(根管治疗术)3组,每组40例,术后第3、6、12个月复查,综合评价3组的疗效、发生不良反应和患者满意度的差异.结果 3组患牙治疗效果均较好:术后3个月,A、B、C组的治疗成功率分别是92.5％、97.5％、95.0％;术后6个月,3组分别是90.0％、95.0％、92.5％;术后12个月,3组分别是90.0％、95.0％、90.0％.在不同时间段,3组之间治疗的成功率和术后不良反应发生率的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).A、B两组的患者综合满意度明显高于C组(P<0.05).结论 iRoot BP Plus用于因龋露髓的成熟恒牙活髓保存治疗,疗效可靠,可以避免根管治疗所产生的术后并发症,值得临床推广.     

iRoot BP Plus根管倒充填联合Bio-Oss植骨在治疗慢性根尖周病变中的临床效果

目的 探讨显微根尖外科手术中iRoot BP Plus倒充填和Bio-Oss植骨在治疗慢性根尖周病变的临床效果。方法 选取2015年10月～2018年1月期间收治的慢性根尖周炎共计126颗患牙作为研究对象,按是否进行iRoot BP Plus根管倒充填和Bio-Oss植骨修复缺损分为三组。术后复查,通过临床检查和X线片评定结果,分析临床疗效。结果 术后12个月根尖手术中行iRoot BP Plus和Bio-Oss联合应用组治疗成功率达97.62%,iRoot BP Plus治疗组未行Bio-Oss植骨组的治疗成功率达80.95%,而单纯根尖手术治疗组治疗成功率仅为54.76%,组间差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 显微根尖外科手术中iRoot BP Plus倒充填联合Bio-Oss植骨具有良好的临床效果。     

iRoot SP的特性及根管封闭剂超充的研究进展

根管治疗效果与根管封闭剂密切相关,而在充填过程中,很可能存在根管封闭剂超充填的情况。商品化的根管封闭剂种类众多,iRoot SP作为一种新型生物陶瓷类根管封闭剂,因具有良好的生物相容性、封闭性和抗菌性而逐渐被重视,其超充是否会影响患牙的预后也引起了关注。本文总结了iRoot SP理化及生物学性能,以及根管封闭剂超充填的研究进展,结合随访病例分析iRoot SP超充的预后情况。     

iRoot SP���ڵ���������������ʵ���о�

目的评价根管封闭剂iRootSP的根尖封闭效果。方法选择2012年9—12月中国医科大学口腔医学院口腔外科拔除的单根管前牙50颗,随机分为2个实验组（A、B组,每组20颗）和2个对照组（c组为阳性对照组,D组为阴性对照组,每组5颗）。所有牙均常规开髓、拔髓,采用机用ProTaper设备根管至F2。A、B组分别采用根管封闭剂iRootSP加单尖充填技术和根管封闭剂AHPlus加单尖充填技术充填根管,c、D组均不做任何根管充填;4组牙齿均用光固化复合树脂充填髓腔及开髓孔。A、B、c组在除根尖孔2mm外的整个牙根表面均匀涂布指甲油2遍,D组在牙根表面及根尖孔全部涂布指甲油2遍。采用染料渗透法检测根尖微渗漏情况,对各组染料渗透长度进行比较分析。结果A、B组均有不同程度的根尖微渗漏,A组染料渗透长度为（1．62±0．20）mm,B组为（1．80±0．20）mm,两组间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。作为阳性对照的c组,染料渗透长度为（10．75±1．28）mm,几乎渗入牙根全长;作为阴性对照的D组,则无染料渗入牙根。结论根管封闭剂iRootSP的根尖封闭性能与AHPlus相似。由于单尖充填技术操作简便,副损伤小,省时省力,具有良好的临床应用前景。     

新型硅酸钙基生物材料用于根尖倒充填的封闭性能和粘接强度的研究

目的:评价和比较硅酸钙基生物材料iRoot BP Plus和MTA作为根尖倒充填材料的封闭性和粘接强度.方法:收集因正畸或牙周病新鲜拔除的单根离体牙93颗,截去牙冠后行常规根管预备、根管充填,切除根尖3mm后行根尖倒预备,随机分为3组:A组(iRoot BP Plus组)、B组(MTA组)、C组(GIC组),分别行根尖...     

iRoot BP修复磨牙髓室底穿孔的研究

目的 探讨iRoot BP直接修复髓室底穿孔的效果。方法 收集新鲜拔除的人恒磨牙40颗,其中36颗于髓室底中央制备直径2 mm的穿孔洞型,随机分为A、B组,每组18颗,分别用iRoot BP和矿物三氧化聚合体（MTA）修复髓室底穿孔;另外4颗为对照组,只开髓不制备髓室底穿孔。从A、B组中各随机选择3个样本用扫描电子显微镜观察材料和牙本质的结合界面;其余15个样本用葡萄糖氧化酶-蒽酮法检测微渗漏值。结果 A组中,iRoot BP与牙本质结合较为紧密,而B组中MTA和牙本质之间存在不均匀的微小间隙。在观察期内,B组的微渗漏值高于A组,其差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 iRoot BP修复髓室底穿孔的封闭效果优于MTA。     

Solubility and apical sealing characteristics of a new calcium silicate-based root canal sealer in comparison to calcium hydroxide-, methacrylate resin- and epoxy resin-based sealers

Abstract

Aim. To assess and compare the water sorption, solubility and apical sealing ability of iRoot SP and three other widely used root canal sealers. Materials and methods. Solubility was assessed by immersing standardized samples of calcium silicate- (iRoot SP), calcium hydroxide- (Sealapex), methacrylate resin- (EndoREZ) and epoxy resin- (AH Plus) based sealers in distilled water and measuring weight gain and weight loss at 6 h, 24 h and daily for 14 days. Roots of extracted mandibular premolars (n = 80) were prepared with 0.04-taper nickel-titanium rotary files to a final size 40. Roots were then randomly divided into four experimental groups (n = 18) and two control groups (n = 4), root canal sealers were applied and apical leakage was assessed using the fluid filtration method. Data was analyzed using Kruskal Wallis analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U-tests, with the level of significance set at p ≤ 0.05. Results. EndoREZ exhibited the highest water sorption, followed by iRoot SP, Sealapex and AH Plus. Sealapex exhibited significantly higher solubility than the other sealers, whereas no significant differences in solubility levels were observed between the other three sealers tested. AH Plus exhibited significantly lower microleakage than Sealapex and EndoREZ, whereas no difference in microleakage was found between AH Plus and iRoot SP. Conclusions. In view of the study findings, all tested sealers except Sealapex met the ANSI/ADA's requirements for solubility and no difference was found between AH Plus and iRoot SP in terms of apical sealing ability.     

Outcome of root canal treatment using warm vertical compaction with bioceramic and resin-based sealers: A randomised clinical trial

This study aimed to compare the effect of a bioceramic sealer (iRoot SP) and a resin-based sealer (AH Plus) on the outcome of root canal treatment in a 2-year follow-up. Seventy-six teeth with irreversibly or necrotic pulp were recruited. After instrumentation and disinfection, the root canals were obturated using warm vertical compaction with iRoot SP (n = 43) or AH Plus (n = 33). Patients were followed up by clinical and radiographic examination at 6 12 and 24 months with recall rates of 84.2%, 65.8% and 48.7%, respectively. During each recall session, the success rates were 80%, 85.2% and 85% in the iRoot SP group and 82.8%, 91.3% and 88.2% in the AH Plus group. The success rates of the two groups did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The bioceramic sealer resulted in a similar clinical performance and success rate to the resin-based sealer in endodontic treatment during a 2-year follow-up.