Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics · 2010
An in vitro evaluation of apicoectomies and retropreparations using different methods.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Camargo Villela Berbert Fábio Luiz, de Faria-Júnior Norberto Batista, Tanomaru-Filho Mário, Guerreiro-Tanomaru Juliane Maria, Bonetti-Filho Idomeo, Leonardo Renato de Toledo, Marcantonio Rosemary Adriana Chierici
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate: 1) the apical root surface, gutta-percha interface, and preparation time of root-end resections made with burs, ultrasound, or laser; and 2) the thickness of surrounding dentin after laser or ultrasonic root-end cavity preparation.
STUDY DESIGN: 1) Thirty root-filled teeth were resected as follows: Zekrya bur in group I, Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) ultrasonic tip (9.5107-8) in group II, and ErCr:YSGG (Waterlase) in group III. The preparation time was recorded. Replicas of the resected root-ends were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). 2) Thirty root-filled teeth were submitted to apicectomies and root-end cavities were prepared by using: CVD (6.1107-6) ultrasonic retrotips (group IV), EMS (DT-060) ultrasonic retrotips (group V), and ErCr:YSGG laser tips (group VI). Replicas of the root apices were examined under a SEM.
RESULTS: There were no fissures or fractures on root-end surfaces. The bur produced the smoothest surface (P < .05). Group I had the lowest preparation time (P < .05). The best adaptation between the filling and the root canals walls was observed in group III, but it was not significantly different from group II (P < .05). No resected root-ends had cracks after preparation. Group VI showed the least minimum dentin thickness (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The 3 methods evaluated did not cause any injury to the root-end surface, but they harmed the apical adaptation. Laser tips removed more dentin than ultrasonic retrotips and should be used with care to avoid overpreparation.
STUDY DESIGN: 1) Thirty root-filled teeth were resected as follows: Zekrya bur in group I, Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) ultrasonic tip (9.5107-8) in group II, and ErCr:YSGG (Waterlase) in group III. The preparation time was recorded. Replicas of the resected root-ends were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). 2) Thirty root-filled teeth were submitted to apicectomies and root-end cavities were prepared by using: CVD (6.1107-6) ultrasonic retrotips (group IV), EMS (DT-060) ultrasonic retrotips (group V), and ErCr:YSGG laser tips (group VI). Replicas of the root apices were examined under a SEM.
RESULTS: There were no fissures or fractures on root-end surfaces. The bur produced the smoothest surface (P < .05). Group I had the lowest preparation time (P < .05). The best adaptation between the filling and the root canals walls was observed in group III, but it was not significantly different from group II (P < .05). No resected root-ends had cracks after preparation. Group VI showed the least minimum dentin thickness (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The 3 methods evaluated did not cause any injury to the root-end surface, but they harmed the apical adaptation. Laser tips removed more dentin than ultrasonic retrotips and should be used with care to avoid overpreparation.