International endodontic journal · 2011
Efficacy of several techniques for the removal of calcium hydroxide medicament from root canals.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное 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.
Taşdemir T, Celik D, Er K, Yildirim T, Ceyhanli K T, Yeşilyurt C
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the efficacy of several techniques for the removal of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)(2)) from root canals.
METHODOLOGY: The root canals of 24 freshly extracted human mandibular premolars were prepared with ProTaper rotary instruments. The teeth were sectioned longitudinally along the length of the instrumented canals. The roots were subsequently reassembled with wires. After Ca(OH)(2) was placed into the canals, four techniques were used for its removal. In Group I, the teeth were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl. Group II was treated in the same manner as Group I, but 5 mL of 17% EDTA was used in addition to NaOCl. In Group III, the teeth were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl and agitated by an ultrasonic unit. In Group IV, the teeth were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl and a CanalBrush was used to remove the Ca(OH)(2) . The roots were disassembled and digital photographs were taken. Measurements of residual Ca(OH)(2) were performed as percentages of the overall canal surface area. The data was analysed with one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey test.
RESULTS: Significantly less residual material was obtained with a CanalBrush and passive ultrasonic agitation of NaOCl than the other groups (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between syringe delivery of NaOCl and NaOCl+EDTA (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: None of the techniques removed the Ca(OH)(2) dressing completely. CanalBrush and ultrasonic agitation of NaOCl were significantly more effective than irrigant-only techniques.
METHODOLOGY: The root canals of 24 freshly extracted human mandibular premolars were prepared with ProTaper rotary instruments. The teeth were sectioned longitudinally along the length of the instrumented canals. The roots were subsequently reassembled with wires. After Ca(OH)(2) was placed into the canals, four techniques were used for its removal. In Group I, the teeth were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl. Group II was treated in the same manner as Group I, but 5 mL of 17% EDTA was used in addition to NaOCl. In Group III, the teeth were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl and agitated by an ultrasonic unit. In Group IV, the teeth were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl and a CanalBrush was used to remove the Ca(OH)(2) . The roots were disassembled and digital photographs were taken. Measurements of residual Ca(OH)(2) were performed as percentages of the overall canal surface area. The data was analysed with one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey test.
RESULTS: Significantly less residual material was obtained with a CanalBrush and passive ultrasonic agitation of NaOCl than the other groups (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between syringe delivery of NaOCl and NaOCl+EDTA (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: None of the techniques removed the Ca(OH)(2) dressing completely. CanalBrush and ultrasonic agitation of NaOCl were significantly more effective than irrigant-only techniques.