Qmix、MTAD与EDTA去除根管玷污层的实验观察

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2017.11.016

口腔医学研究 ›› 2017, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (11): 1197-1200.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2017.11.016

Qmix、MTAD与EDTA去除根管玷污层的实验观察

尹艳娇, 葛翘诚, 丁欣欣, 吴佩玲^*

新疆医科大学第二附属医院口腔科新疆乌鲁木齐 830068

收稿日期:2017-04-02 出版日期:2017-11-20 发布日期:2017-11-29
通讯作者: 吴佩玲,E-mail:wplkq@sina.com
作者简介:尹艳娇(1988~ ),女,辽宁沈阳人,医师,硕士在读,主要从事口腔内科的临床治疗工作。

Study on Removal of Root Canal Smear Layer by Qmix, MTAD and EDTA

YIN Yan-jiao, GE Qiao-cheng, DING Xin-xin, WU Pei-ling^*

Department of Stomatology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi 830068, China

Received:2017-04-02 Online:2017-11-20 Published:2017-11-29

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的:扫描电镜下比较Qmix、EDTA 与MTAD去除根管壁玷污层的效果。方法:选择40颗离体单根管下颌前磨牙,距根尖14 mm处截冠,采用S3镍钛锉预备到3S,将样本依照终末冲洗剂的不同随机分成4组:A组:5 mL 0.9%的生理盐水冲洗1 min(阴性对照);B组:5 mL 17%EDTA溶液冲洗1 min;C组:5 mL MTAD溶液冲洗1 min;D组:5 mL Qmix溶液冲洗1 min。根管预备完成后,将牙齿沿近远中向纵行分成两半,实验样本处理后在扫描电镜下观察根尖1/3(距根尖1~2 mm)、根中1/3(距根尖6~7 mm)、根上1/3(距根尖10~12 mm)处根管壁玷污层情况,并对数据进行统计学分析。结果:B、C、D组与A组(对照组)比较,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.001);两两比较后,D组分别优于B组、C组,C组优于B组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001);各组根上1/3优于根中1/3,根中1/3优于根尖1/3(P<0.05)。结论:在本实验条件下提示:新型根管冲洗液 Qmix能更有效地去除根管玷污层。

关键词: 根管冲洗, 玷污层, 扫描电镜, 根管预备, Qmix

Abstract: Objective: To compare the removal of smear layer of root canal by Qmix, EDTA and MTAD using scanning electron microscope(SEM). Methods: Forty human mandibular premolar teeth with single canal were taken and decoronated to standardize the canal length to 14mm. Tooth were prepared by S3 rotary system to an root canal preparation of file size 3S, and then randomly divided into 4 groups according to the different final irrigations: 5ml saline for 1 min (Group A; negative control), 5ml 17% EDTA for 1 min (Group B), 5ml MTAD for 1min (Group C), and 5ml Qmix for 1 min (Group D). After the completion of root canal preparation, the teeth were split into two halves longitudinally. The smear layers in the root canal of apical 1/3 (Apical 1-2mm), root 1/3 (Apical 6-7mm), and root 1/3 (Apical 10-12mm) were observed with SEM, and the data were statistically analyzed. Results: The results of group B, C, D group were statistically significant different from that of group A (control group) (P<0.001). And group D was superior to group B and C, group C was better than group B (P<0.001). The coronal thirds of each group was better than the middle thirds of root, and the middle thirds of root was superior to the apical thirds of root (P<0.05). Conclusion: Qmix can effectively remove the root canal smear layer.

Key words: Root canal irrigation, Smear layer, Scanning electron microscope, Root canal preparation, Qmix

中图分类号:

R780.2

尹艳娇, 葛翘诚, 丁欣欣, 吴佩玲. Qmix、MTAD与EDTA去除根管玷污层的实验观察[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2017, 33(11): 1197-1200.

YIN Yan-jiao, GE Qiao-cheng, DING Xin-xin, WU Pei-ling. Study on Removal of Root Canal Smear Layer by Qmix, MTAD and EDTA[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2017, 33(11): 1197-1200.

参考文献

[1] 韩永成,王光华,洪法康. 根管玷污层[J].国外医学·口腔医学分册,1991,18(5)∶271-275
[2] Economides N, Kokorikos I, Kolokouris I, et al. Comparative study of apical sealing ability of a new resin - based root canal sealer [J]. J Endod, 2004, 30(6)∶403-405
[3] Yamazaki AK, Moura- Netto C, Salgado RJ, et al. Exvivo analysis of root canal cleaning using Endo-PTC associated to NaOCl and different irrigant solutions [J]. Braz Oral Res, 2010, 24(1)∶15-20
[4] 后岷红,陈敏,李蕾,等.次酸钠冲洗方式、温度和冲洗时间影响根管玷污层的清除效果[J].中国组织工程研究,2015,19(43)∶6918-6923
[5] 陈媛媛,张文汇,郭斌,等.比较注射冲洗辅助超声震荡对根管清洁效果的系统评价[J].华西口腔医学杂志,2015,33(2)∶145-152
[6] Rossi-Fedele G, Dogramaci EJ, Guastalli AR. Antagonistic interactions between sodium hypochlorite, chlorhexidine, EDTA, and citric acid [J]. Endod, 2012, 38(4)∶426-31
[7] 熊梦琳,徐江,马琰,等.镍钛器械在3种不同模式下预备根管后根尖孔表面形态变化[J].口腔医学研究,2017,33(2)∶183-186
[8] Hulsmann M, Rummelin C, Schafers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments:a comparative SEM investigation [J]. J Endod,1997,23(5)∶301-306
[9] 李钟响.次氯酸钠溶液对临床常见细菌的敏感性观察[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2012,22(4)∶776-777
[10] 史彦.次氯酸钠溶液组织溶解性的实验研究[J].口腔医学研究,2011,27(2)∶149-151
[11] Hauman CH, Love RM. Biocompatibility of dental materials used in contemporary endodontic therapy: A review. Part 1.Intracanal drugs and substances [J]. Int Endod J, 2003, 36(2)∶75-85
[12] 张苏娜,唐荣银,胡坤,等.五倍子水提取物去除根管内玷污层的扫描电镜观察[J].牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志,2007,17(11)∶638-641
[13] Shenoy A, Ahmaduddin, Bolla N, et al. Effect of final irrigating solution on smear layer removal and penetrability of the root canal sealer [J]. J Conserv Dent,2014,17(1)∶40-44
[14] 吴晨,徐东升.电镜下EDTA与MTAD去除牙体根管玷污层效果比较[J].浙江临床医学,2015,17(6)∶934-935
[15] Dai L, Khechen K, Khan S, et al. The effect of QMix, an experimental antibacterial root canal irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layer and debris [J]. J Endod, 2011, 37(6)∶80-84
[16] Chandrasekhar V, amulya V, Rani VS, et al. Evaluation of biocompatibility of a new root canal irrigant QMixTM 2 in 1-an in vivo study [J]. J Conserv Dent, 2013, 16(1)∶36-40
[17] Hacer A, Ahmet S, Sukru K, et al. Effects of QMix and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on decalcification and erosion of root canal dentin [J]. Wiley Periodicals, Inc, 2016, 79(11)∶1056-1061
[18] Eliot C, Hatton JF, Stewart GP, et al. The effect of the irrigant QMix on removal of canal wall smear layer: An ex vivo study [J]. Odontology. 2014, 102∶232-240
[19] Stojicic S, Shen Y, Qian W, et al. Antibacterial and smear layer removal ability of a novel irrigant, QMix [J]. Int Endod J, 2012, 45(4)∶363-371
[20] Ballal NV, Tweeny A, Khechen K, et al. Wettability of root canal sealers on intraradicular dentine treated with different irrigating solutions [J]. J Dent, 2013, 41(6)∶556-560
[21] Sayesh V, Sreeha KK, Sujana V, et al. Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study [J]. J Conserv Dent, 2016, 19(1)∶87-90

Qmix、MTAD与EDTA去除根管玷污层的实验观察

Study on Removal of Root Canal Smear Layer by Qmix, MTAD and EDTA

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	尚佳鑫, 苏瑞, 马冲, 李新月. 两种抛光方式对两种充填材料表面形貌和细胞增殖能力的影响[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(6): 581-584.
[2]	乐鑫, 申静. 有机酸类冲洗液对根管内玷污层清理效果的研究进展[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(5): 416-419.
[3]	辛悦,杨健. XP-endo系列镍钛锉的研究进展[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2019, 35(6): 521-523.
[4]	代建梅, 李奉华, 邱喜丽, 董新. 渗透树脂和生物活性玻璃修复早期釉质龋的研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2019, 35(5): 453-456.
[5]	江波, 黄静. 不同镍钛器械在弯曲根管预备中的比较[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2019, 35(4): 331-334.
[6]	狄贵景,莫宏兵. 简化乙醇湿粘结技术和不同的桩道冲洗对纤维桩粘结性能的影响[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2018, 34(9): 979-982.
[7]	史彦, 邓志鹏, 陈浩. 5种根管冲洗液对小鼠成纤维细胞L929的毒性评价[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2018, 34(4): 388-392.
[8]	鲍萍萍, 申静, 李梦辞, 樊明文. XP-endo Finisher清除椭圆形根管细菌生物膜的效果研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2018, 34(2): 117-120.
[9]	王欣,张程,李天成,陶贵渝,段沛沛,邹淑娟. 一种新型牙骨质细胞系的矿化特性研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2018, 34(12): 1324-1328.
[10]	刘元元, 刘生波. ProTaper、WaveOne与ProTaperNext成形弯曲根管能力的比较[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2018, 34(10): 1048-1051.
[11]	刘敏, 彭彬. 两种功率PIPS-Er:YAG激光对根管内玷污层去除效果的比较研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2018, 34(10): 1067-1071.
[12]	杨殷杰, 侯本祥, 侯晓玫. 预加载疲劳应力对R-相镍钛锉表面形态及疲劳折断性能的影响[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2017, 33(8): 820-823.
[13]	陈冠廷, 廖海清, 张慧慧, 曹正国. 显微镜下与直视下超声洁治的根面情况比较研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2017, 33(6): 623-625.
[14]	于小青，刘宇飞，郭世博，冯瑞明，朱梦莹，薛明. 5种机用镍钛锉预备根管成形能力的比较研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2017, 33(3): 286-289.
[15]	熊梦琳, 徐江, 马琰, 马俊玥, 高文辉, 吴佩玲. 镍钛器械在3种不同运动模式下预备根管后根尖孔表面形态变化[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2017, 33(2): 183-186.