Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985) · 2009
Comparison of 2 flushing methods used during passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van der Sluis Lucas, Wu Min-Kai, Wesselink Paul
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of irrigation time on the removal of dentin debris from root canals irrigated with passive ultrasonic irrigation comparing 2 flushing methods.
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Root canals with a standardized groove in 1 canal wall, which was filled with dentin debris, were irrigated ultrasonically or with syringe irrigation. The quantity of dentin debris after irrigation was determined. In groups 1 to 4, the irrigant was activated by an ultrasonically activated file. In groups 1 and 2 (n = 20), the canals were flushed 3 or 1.5 minutes using a continuous flow of irrigant. In groups 3 and 4 (n = 20), the irrigation time was 1 or 3 minutes, and the canals were flushed 3 times by syringe irrigation (intermittent flushing method). In group 5 (n = 20), the root canals were flushed 3 times using syringe irrigation.
RESULTS: Significantly more dentin debris was removed when the irrigant was activated by ultrasound (P = .000). Significantly less dentin debris was removed when the root canals were irrigated with a continuous flow of irrigant for 1.5 minutes (P = .005).
CONCLUSIONS: Three minutes of ultrasonic irrigation with the intermittent flush technique or a continuous flow is as effective as 1 minute with the intermittent flush technique. The efficiency of the ultrasonic irrigation with a continuous flow is time dependent, 1.5 minutes being less efficient than 3 minutes.
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Root canals with a standardized groove in 1 canal wall, which was filled with dentin debris, were irrigated ultrasonically or with syringe irrigation. The quantity of dentin debris after irrigation was determined. In groups 1 to 4, the irrigant was activated by an ultrasonically activated file. In groups 1 and 2 (n = 20), the canals were flushed 3 or 1.5 minutes using a continuous flow of irrigant. In groups 3 and 4 (n = 20), the irrigation time was 1 or 3 minutes, and the canals were flushed 3 times by syringe irrigation (intermittent flushing method). In group 5 (n = 20), the root canals were flushed 3 times using syringe irrigation.
RESULTS: Significantly more dentin debris was removed when the irrigant was activated by ultrasound (P = .000). Significantly less dentin debris was removed when the root canals were irrigated with a continuous flow of irrigant for 1.5 minutes (P = .005).
CONCLUSIONS: Three minutes of ultrasonic irrigation with the intermittent flush technique or a continuous flow is as effective as 1 minute with the intermittent flush technique. The efficiency of the ultrasonic irrigation with a continuous flow is time dependent, 1.5 minutes being less efficient than 3 minutes.