不同辅助根管冲洗技术对根管壁清洁效果的实验研究

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2021.09.008

口腔医学研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (9): 805-809.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2021.09.008

不同辅助根管冲洗技术对根管壁清洁效果的实验研究

张含, 王素苹, 任颖超, 孔祥红, 王丹丹, 肖燕^*

郑州大学第一附属医院口腔医学中心河南郑州 450000

收稿日期:2021-03-12 出版日期:2021-09-28 发布日期:2021-09-16
通讯作者: *肖燕,E-mail:xiaoyan@zzu.edu.cn
作者简介:张含(1993~ ),女,河南开封人,硕士,主要从事牙体牙髓病的基础及临床研究。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金青年项目(编号:81900993)河南省科技攻关项目(编号:192102310079)

Cleaning Effectiveness of Different Irrigation Techniques on Root Canal Walls: an in vitro Study

ZHANG Han, WANG Suping, REN Yingchao, KONG Xianghong, WANG Dandan, XIAO Yan^*

Department of Stomatology, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450000, China

Received:2021-03-12 Online:2021-09-28 Published:2021-09-16

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的: 体外比较注射器冲洗技术、被动超声荡洗技术、EDDY声波荡洗技术及PIPS-Er:YAG激光荡洗技术的对根管壁玷污层的清洁效果。方法: 收集郑州大学第一附属医院口腔颌面外科新鲜拔除的下颌前磨牙60颗,将所有离体牙冠部截断,保留15 mm的根长,ProTaper Universal机用镍钛锉预备至F4后随机分为4组,分别采用注射器冲洗、被动超声荡洗、EDDY声波荡洗、PIPS-Er:YAG激光荡洗4种不同辅助根管冲洗技术行根管冲洗,最后将所有样本沿牙长轴劈开,取其中形态较完整的一半,扫描电镜下观察根上、根中和根下段标记区域玷污层清除情况并拍摄照片,最后对拍摄的扫描电镜图片进行玷污层评分及统计分析。结果: 在根上段,4组样本间玷污层评分差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。在根中段和根下段,被动超声荡洗组、EDDY声波荡洗组、PIPS-Er:YAG激光荡洗组的根管内壁玷污层评分均低于注射器冲洗组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。在根下段,PIPS-Er:YAG激光荡洗组玷污层评分低于其余各组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。结论: PIPS-Er:YAG激光荡洗技术具有良好的根管清洁效果。被动超声荡洗技术与EDDY声波荡洗技术的清洁效果优于注射器冲洗技术。

关键词: 被动超声荡洗, EDDY, PIPS-Er:YAG激光, 玷污层

Abstract: Objective: To compare the effect of four different irrigation techniques on smear layer removal in root canals in vitro. Methods: Sixty mandibular premolars extracted from patients in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University were collected. All the crowns of the single-root human teeth were cut off and the root length was trimmed to 15mm. The specimens were instrumented with ProTaper Universal Ni-Ti files. Then they were randomly divided into four groups according to irrigation techniques: needle irrigation (NI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), EDDY irrigation (EDDY), and PIPS-Er:YAG laser irrigation (PIPS). Finally, the roots were split longitudinally and observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for assessment of smear layer removal. The smear layer score was assessed and the results were statistically analyzed. Results: In the coronal part of the canal, the mean score of smear layer was similar among four groups (P>0.05). In the middle and apical part of the canal, the smear layer score in PUI group, EDDY group, and PIPS group were significantly lower than those in NI group (P<0.05). In the apical part of the canal, the smear layer score in PIPS group was lower than that of other groups (P<0.05). Conclusion: PIPS-Er:YAG laser irrigation technology can effectively remove smear layer of root canals. The cleaning effect of passive ultrasonic irrigation and EDDY irrigation is better than that of Needle irrigation technology.

Key words: passive ultrasonic irrigation, EDDY, PIPS- Er: YAG laser, smear layer

张含, 王素苹, 任颖超, 孔祥红, 王丹丹, 肖燕. 不同辅助根管冲洗技术对根管壁清洁效果的实验研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(9): 805-809.

ZHANG Han, WANG Suping, REN Yingchao, KONG Xianghong, WANG Dandan, XIAO Yan. Cleaning Effectiveness of Different Irrigation Techniques on Root Canal Walls: an in vitro Study[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2021, 37(9): 805-809.

参考文献

[1] Sen BH, Wesselink PR, Türkün M. The smear layer: a phenomenon in root canal therapy [J]. Int Endod J, 1995, 28(3): 141-148.
[2] Vouzara T, Koulaouzidou E, Ziouti F, et al. Combined and independent cytotoxicity of sodium hypochlorite, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and chl orhexidine [J]. Int Endod J, 2016, 49(8): 764-773.
[3] Freire LG, Iglecias EF, Cunha RS, et al. Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of hard tissue debris removal after different irrigation methods and its influence on the filling of curved canals [J]. J Endod, 2015, 41(10): 1660-1666.
[4] Tomson PL, Simon SR. Contemporary cleaning and shaping of the root canal system [J]. Prim Dent J, 2016, 5(2): 46-53.
[5] Chiniforush N, Pourhajibagher M, Shahabi S, et al. Clinical approach of high technology techniques for control and elimination of endodontic microbiota [J]. J Lasers Med Sci, 2015, 6(4): 139-150.
[6] Plotino G, Colangeli M, Özyürek T, et al. Evaluation of smear layer and debris removal by stepwise intraoperative activation (SIA) of sodium hypochlorite [J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2021, 25(1): 237-245.
[7] Orlowski NB, Schimdt TF, Teixeira CDS, et al. Smear layer removal using passive ultrasonic irrigation and different concentrations of sodium Hypochlorite [J]. J Endod, 2020:S0099-2399(20)30509-4.
[8] Silva E, Carvalho CR, Belladonna FG, et al. Micro-CT evaluation of different final irrigation protocols on the removal of hard-tissue debris from isthmus-containing mesial root of mandibular molars [J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2019, 23(2): 681-687.
[9] 李宗擘,方厂云.Er:YAG激光对根管内粪肠球菌和玷污层的清理效果[J].中南大学学报(医学版),2017,42(3): 328-333.
[10] Haupt F, Meinel M, Gunawardana A, et al. Effectiveness of different activated irrigation techniques on debris and smear layer removal from curved root canals: a SEM evaluation [J]. Aust Endod J, 2020, 46(1): 40-46.
[11] Gambarini G, Laszkiewicz J. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of GT rotary instruments [J]. Int Endod J, 2002, 35(5): 422-427.
[12] Gergi R, Osta N, Bourbouze G, et al. Effects of three nickel titanium instrument systems on root canal geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography [J]. Int Endod J, 2015, 48(2): 162-170.
[13] Paqué F, Al-Jadaa A, Kfir A. Hard-tissue debris accumulation created by conventional rotary versus self-adjusting file instrumentation in mesial root canal systems of mandibular molars [J]. Int Endod J, 2012, 45(5): 413-418.
[14] 徐程宇.辅助根管冲洗器械对玷污层清理效率及安全性的体外研究[D].南京大学,2017.
[15] 贾智,孟媛媛,王丽君,等.下颌第一前磨牙根管形态及牙根变异的锥形束CT研究[J].医学研究生学报,2017,30(9): 948-952.
[16] Pilo R, Metzger Z, Brosh T. Effect of root morphology on the susceptibility of endodontically treated teeth to vertical root fracture: An ex-vivo model [J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2017, 69: 267-274.
[17] Urban K, Donnermeyer D, Schäfer E, et al. Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: a SEM evaluation [J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2017, 21(9): 2681-2687.
[18] Neelakantan P, Ounsi HF, Devaraj S, et al. Effectiveness of irrigation strategies on the removal of the smear layer from root canal dentin [J]. Odontology, 2019, 107(2): 142-149.
[19] 徐程宇,葛久禹.辅助根管冲洗器械对根管壁玷污层清理效率体外研究[J].中国实用口腔科杂志,2017,10(8): 488-492.
[20] Boutsioukis C, Lambrianidis T, Verhaagen B, et al. The effect of needle-insertion depth on the irrigant flow in the root canal: evaluation using an unst eady computational fluid dynamics model [J]. J Endod, 2010, 36(10): 1664-1668.
[21] 孙宁佳,郭威.Er:YAG激光和超声荡洗对根管内壁形态及微渗漏的比较研究[J].牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志,2017,27(12): 689-697+712.
[22] 白雨豪,侯晓玫,苏征.不同方法对弯曲根管内氢氧化钙清除效果的锥形束CT研究[J].口腔医学研究,2017,33(11): 1193-1196.
[23] Beer F, Farmakis ET, Kopic J, et al. Temperature development on the external root surface during laser-assisted endodontic treatment applying a microchopped mode of a 980 nm diode laser [J]. Photomed Laser Surg, 2017, 35(4): 206-212.
[24] 何新宇,林欣欣,李依洲,等.Er∶YAG激光光子增强的光声流效应技术清理根管玷污层效果的体外研究[J].中国实用口腔科杂志, 2021, 14(2): 161-165.

不同辅助根管冲洗技术对根管壁清洁效果的实验研究

Cleaning Effectiveness of Different Irrigation Techniques on Root Canal Walls: an in vitro Study

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 9

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	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.
[2]	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.
[3]	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.
[4]	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.
[5]	戴姗姗, 肖刚, 张林, 郭青玉. 不同功率Diode激光用于乳牙根管清洁的体外研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2016, 32(7): 742-745.
[6]	周琳 ,童雪梅 ,储曼茹 ,张秋霞. MTAN用于桩道清洁能力的实验研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2016, 32(6): 613-616.
[7]	王天丰,曹茜茜,撒悦,蒋滔. 植酸作为螯合剂去除根管玷污层的效力及其对牙本质化学组成的影响[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2016, 32(4): 374-378.
[8]	苗晖,郭香君,陈敏,吴丽更. 根尖预备尺寸对玷污层清除效果的比较研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2015, 31(2): 160-162.
[9]	陈泽华,杨清岭,王志群,孔宇,李美娜,赵玥,李宝花. CarisolvIII凝胶联合低浓度次氯酸钠去除根管壁玷污层效能的体外实验研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2015, 31(12): 1209-1211.