XP-endo Finisher清除椭圆形根管细菌生物膜的效果研究

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.02.003

口腔医学研究 ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (2): 117-120.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.02.003

XP-endo Finisher清除椭圆形根管细菌生物膜的效果研究

鲍萍萍¹, 申静¹, 李梦辞¹, 樊明文^2*

1. 天津市口腔医院牙体牙髓科天津 300041;
2. 武汉第一口腔医院牙体牙髓科湖北武汉 430000;

收稿日期:2017-10-26 出版日期:2018-02-28 发布日期:2018-02-26
通讯作者: 樊明文,E-mail:fan.mw@wuhankq.com
作者简介:鲍萍萍(1979~ ),女,河北人,硕士,副主任医师,主要从事牙体牙髓病学的临床工作和基础研究。
基金资助:
天津市口腔医院硕博重点项目(编号:2017BSZD11)

Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher on Biofilm Removal from Oval Root Canals

BAO Ping-ping¹,SHEN Jing¹, LI Meng-ci¹,FAN Ming-wen^2*

1. Department of Endodontics, Tianjin Stomatological Hospital, Tianjin 300041, China;
2. Department of Endodontics, The First Stomatological Hospital of Wuhan, Wuhan 430000,China.

Received:2017-10-26 Online:2018-02-28 Published:2018-02-26

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的:比较XP-endo Finisher(XPF)和被动超声冲洗(passive ultrasonic irrigation, PUI),及两者联合应用清除椭圆形根管细菌生物膜的效果。方法:选取54颗成人离体单根管横截面为椭圆形的前磨牙,建立多菌种生物膜感染根管模型。厌氧培养4周后随机选取6颗为对照,扫描电镜(Scanning electron microscopy,SEM)确认多菌种生物膜形成。余牙应用Vortex Blue预备到40/.06后分为4个实验组(n=12),分别采用传统注射器冲洗(conventional needle irrigation,CNI)、PUI、XPF、PUI+XPF结合3%次氯酸钠溶液进行根管处理。采集样本根管尖、中、冠1/3 SEM图像,计算残余细菌生物膜面积百分比。结果:细菌清除效率由高到低依次为PUI+XPF、XPF、PUI、CNI,前两者无统计学差异(P＞0.05)。结论:XPF清除椭圆形根管生物膜的效果优于PUI和CNI,与PUI联合应用有加强效果但无显著差异。

关键词: 生物膜, 根管冲洗, 超声, XP-endo, Finisher

Abstract: Objective: To compare the effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher (XPF) in biofilm removal with passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) technique applied respectively or combinational using an infected oval-canal tooth model. Methods: Fifty-four extracted human premolars with single oval canals were selected. After growing multispecies biofilm for 4 weeks, 6 teeth were selected randomly as controls and observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM)to confirm the biofilm growth. The other teeth were instrumented using Vortex Blue files to size 40/.06 and then assigned to 4 groups (n=12) according to the irrigation protocol: CNI, PUI, XPF, and PUI+XPF. 3% NaOCl was used as the irritant. SEM images were taken from the apical, middle, and coronal third of the canal surface to evaluate the amount of residual biofilm. Results: The ranking of the effectiveness of biofilm removal from the most to the least was: PUI+XPF, XPF, PUI and CNI with no statistical difference between PUI+XPF and XPF (P>0.05). Conclusion: XPF was more effective in removing biofilm from oval root canals than PUI and CNI. The combination with PUI could slightly enhance the efficacy with no significant difference.

Key words: Biofilm, Root canal irrigation, Ultrasonic, XP-endo Finisher

中图分类号:

R781.05

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.

BAO Ping-ping,SHEN Jing, LI Meng-ci,FAN Ming-wen. Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher on Biofilm Removal from Oval Root Canals[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2018, 34(2): 117-120.

参考文献

[1] Lin J, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. A comparative study of biofilm removal with hand, rotary nickel-titanium, and self-adjusting file instrumentation using a novel in vitro biofilm Model [J]. J Endod, 2013, 39(5)∶658-663
[2] Trope M, Debelian G. XP-3D Finisher file-the next step in restorative endodontics [J]. EndodPract US, 2015, 8∶22-24
[3] Peters OA, Arias A, Paque F. A micro-computed tomographic assessment of root canal preparation with a novel instrument, TRUShape, in mesial roots of mandibular molars [J]. J Endod, 2015, 41(9)∶1545 1550
[4] Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Wang Z,et al. Irrigation in endodontics [J]. Br Dent J, 2014, 216(6)∶299-303
[5] Haapasalo M, Wang Z, Shen Y, et al. Tissue dissolution by a novel multisonicultracleaning system and sodium hypochlorite [J]. J Endod, 2014, 40(8)∶1178-1181
[6] FKG Dentaire SA The XP-endo Finisher file brochure. Available at: products/endodontics/final-preparation/xp-endo-finisher. Accessed December 1, 2016
[7] Azim AA, Aksel H, Zhuang T, et al. Efficacy of 4 irrigation protocols in killing bacteria colonized in dentinal tubules examined by a novel confocal laser scanning microscope Analysis [J]. J Endod, 2016,42(6)∶928-934
[8] Du T, Wang Z, Shen Y, et al. Effect of long-term exposure to endodontic disinfecting solutions on young and old enterococcus faecalis biofilms in dentin canals [J]. J Endod, 2014, 40(4)∶509-514
[9] Shen Y, Sonja S, Haapasalo M. Antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine against bacteria in biofilms at different stages of development [J]. J Endod, 2011, 37(5)∶657-661
[10] Giardino L, Mohammadi Z, Beltrami R, et al. Influence of temperature on the antibacterial activity of sodium hypochlorite [J]. Braz Dent J, 2016, 27(1)∶32-36
[11] Del Carpio-Perochena A, Monteiro Bramante C, Hungaro Duarte M, et al.Effect of temperature, concentration and contact time of sodium hypochlorite on the treatment and revitalization of oral biofilms [J].J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects, 2015, 9(4)∶ 209-215
[12] Alves FR, Andrade-Junior CV, Marceliano-Alves MF et al. Adjunctive steps for disinfection of the mandibular molar root canal system: a correlative bacteriologic, micro-computed tomography, and cryopulverization approach [J]. J Endod, 2016, 42(11)∶1667-1672
[13] Leoni GB, Versiani MA, Silva-Sousa YT, et al. Ex vivo evaluation of four final irrigation protocols on the removal of hard-tissue debris from the mesial root canal system of mandibular first molars [J]. Int Endod J, 2017, 50(4)∶398-406
[14] 尹艳娇,葛翘诚,丁欣欣,等.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

[1]	赵霞, 徐嘉昊, 夏商, 张晨, 王万春. Farnesol纳米胶束的构建及对变形链球菌的抑菌作用研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(9): 875-878.
[2]	黄巧艳, 胡砚平. 下颌埋伏亲吻磨牙微创拔除1例[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(9): 887-888.
[3]	张旭阳, 李慧, 刘漪, 娄亭亭, 鲍雪滢, 李诗雅, 黄辉. 乳酸链球菌素对粪肠球菌生物膜的清除作用[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(7): 635-638.
[4]	张慧彦, 李保胜, 张震阳, 韩春雨, 李尊泰, 齐晓爽, 付齐月, 孟维艳. D/L-缬氨酸对牙龈卟啉单胞菌及其生物膜的作用[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(7): 648-653.
[5]	向国林, 李林林, 魏钰璋, 李永梅, 张乐. 超声骨刀联合45°反角涡轮钻拔除下颌阻生智齿的临床应用[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(7): 674-677.
[6]	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.
[7]	吴音璇, 马晟利, 葛文玉, 李慧, 吴丽春, 王馨, 李春梅. 血链球菌细菌素对伴放线聚集杆菌和白色念珠菌生物膜作用的研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(4): 360-364.
[8]	汪汉池, 孙晓琳, 方蛟, 杜留熠, 彭培轩, 周延民. 不同种植体表面改性对细菌生物膜的影响[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(3): 235-238.
[9]	张梦洁, 陆伟, 侯梦瑶, 姜秀, 王飞虎, 陶睿. 粪肠球菌和变异链球菌共培养双菌生物膜性质的初步研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(12): 1128-1131.
[10]	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.
[11]	杨瑶瑶,张志民,赵洪岩,郭馨蔚,刘璐,凌晓旭,曲添. 氟化物对变形链球菌耐氟菌株生物膜形成的影响[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2019, 35(6): 546-550.
[12]	周莉莉, 徐燕, 蒋鹏, 徐涵颖, 辛保见, 沈继龙, 程婷. 抗变异链球菌卵黄抗体对变异链球菌致龋毒力因子及菌斑生物膜的影响[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2019, 35(5): 448-452.
[13]	贺平, 冯瑜, 吴晓乐, 李冀寅, 张禄野, 陈小冬. 超声骨刀拔除下颌第三磨牙断根效果评价[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2019, 35(4): 368-371.
[14]	全旭,许彤彤,张慧彦,王鹤龄,王春阳,崔云霞,付齐月,孟维艳. D-组氨酸抑制变异链球菌生物膜作用的研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2019, 35(2): 176-179.
[15]	张鹏, 周立波, 张慧明, 张美玲, 姜枫, 黄宇博, 李慕勤, 李德超. 镁合金微弧氧化掺杂Zn-HA复合涂层细胞相容性与抗菌性[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2019, 35(10): 1001-1004.

XP-endo Finisher清除椭圆形根管细菌生物膜的效果研究

Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher on Biofilm Removal from Oval Root Canals

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