期刊导航

论文摘要

3种动能冲洗技术对管间峡区内碎屑的清理作用

Evaluation of root-canal isthmus debridement efficacy of 3 kinds of activated irrigation technique

作者:丛鑫禹, 薛明

Author:Cong Xinyu, Xue Ming.

收稿日期:2022-03-22          年卷(期)页码:2022,40(5):554-554-559

期刊名称:华西口腔医学杂志

Journal Name:West China Journal of Stomatology

关键字:动能冲洗,管间峡区,碎屑,超声,激光,

Key words:activated irrigation,isthmus,debris,ultrasonic,laser,

基金项目:

中文摘要

目的 比较声波、超声和激光3种动能冲洗技术对管间峡区的清理能力。 方法 选取32颗具有管间峡区的人上颌第一前磨牙,Reciproc Blue机用镍钛器械预备根管后,通过简单随机抽样分成4组(n=8),分别进行如下冲洗处理:传统冲洗器组(对照组)使用27号侧方开口冲洗器、声波组使用EDDY连接气动马达、超声组使用IRRI Safe连接超声P5手柄、激光组使用9 mm光纤头连接Er:YAG激光器,每根管冲洗20 s。每组前4个样本冲洗80 s,后4个样本冲洗120 s。将所有样本进行固定、脱钙、包埋、切片和苏木精-伊红染色。在显微镜下采集图像,利用Image J软件测量峡区和根管的清洁度,SPSS 25.0软件对数据进行统计学分析。 结果 冲洗80 s时,传统冲洗器组、声波组、超声组、激光组的峡区清洁度分别为30.91%±3.14%、52.22%±0.31%、83.77%±5.64%、77.97%±7.97%,3个实验组均优于传统冲洗器组(P<0.05),超声组、激光组优于声波组(P<0.01,P<0.05),但超声组和激光组间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。冲洗120 s时,传统冲洗器组、声波组、超声组、激光组的峡区清洁度分别为75.72%±2.38%、85.66%±4.42%、88.07%±4.09%、89.12%±3.63%,3个实验组均优于传统冲洗器组(P<0.05),但各实验组间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。4组间的根管清洁度差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。冲洗120 s时的峡区清洁度和根管清洁度均优于冲洗80 s时(P<0.01,P<0.001)。 结论 声波、超声和激光3种动能冲洗技术对管间峡区的清理作用均优于传统冲洗器法,超声和激光动能冲洗技术优于声波,冲洗120 s的清洁度优于冲洗80 s。

英文摘要

ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the capabilities of sonic, ultrasonic, and laser-activated irrigation for debris removal in the root canal isthmus.MethodsA total of 32 human maxillary first premolars with root canal isthmus were prepared by Reciproc Blue, and were randomly divided into four groups (n=8, each group). The groups were subsequently subjected to different regimens as follows: the conventional syringe group (control group) was irrigated by No.27 side opening syringe, the sonic group with EDDY connected pneumatic motor, the ultrasonic group with IRRI Safe connected to a ultrasonic P5 handle, and the laser group with Er:YAG laser device connected to a 9 mm fiber tip for 20 s in each root canal. The first and last four samples in each group were irrigated for 80 and 120 s, respectively. All samples were fixed, decalcified, embedded, sectioned, and stained with hematoxylin-eosin. Image J software was used for measurement analysis of the isthmus and canal debridement efficacy, and SPSS 25.0 was utilized for statistical analysis of all data.ResultsThe isthmus debridement efficacy of conventional syringe irrigation, sonic, ultrasonic, and laser groups after 80 s irrigation were 30.91%±3.14%, 52.22%±0.31%, 83.77%±5.64%, and 77.97%±7.97%, respectively. The isthmus debridement efficacy of the three experimental groups were better than the conventional syringe irrigation group (P<0 .05). the isthmus debridement efficacies of ultrasonic and laser groups after 80 s were better than that of the sonic group (P<0 .01,P<0 .05). however, no significant difference was observed between the ultrasonic and laser groups. the isthmus debridement efficacy of conventional syringe irrigation, sonic, ultrasonic, and laser groups after 120 s were 75.72%±2.38%, 85.66%±4.42%, 88.07%±4.09%, and 89.12%±3.63%, respectively. the isthmus debridement efficacies of the three experimental groups were better than that of the conventional syringe irrigation group (P<0 .05), but no significant difference was observed among the groups (P>0.05). The root canal debridement efficacy among the four groups also exhibited no significant difference (P>0.05). The debridement efficacies of the root canal and isthmus after 120 s irrigation were better than those after 80 s irrigation (P<0 .01,P<0 .001).ConclusionUltrasonic, sonic, and laser-activated irrigation have better results in removing debris from the isthmus than conventional syringe irrigation. The isthmus debridement efficacy of sonic- and laser-activated irrigation are slightly better than that of ultrasonic activated irrigation. The debridement efficacies of 120 s irrigation are better than those of 80 s irrigaion.

下一条:2015—2020年河南省儿童第一恒磨牙健康状况调查

关闭

Copyright © 2020四川大学期刊社 版权所有.

地址:成都市一环路南一段24号

邮编:610065