The International journal of artificial organs · 2015
Effectiveness of different irrigation procedures for removal of dentin debris from a simulated internal resorption cavity.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Topçuoglu Hüseyin S, Akti Ahmet, Düzgün Salih, Ceyhanli Kadir Tolga, Topçuoglu Gamze
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of different final irrigation techniques to remove artificially placed dentinal debris from a simulated internal root resorption (IRR) cavity.
METHODS: Seventy teeth were prepared using the ProTaper system. The roots were then split longitudinally into two halves, in each of which standardized IRR cavities were prepared. Five teeth were set aside to serve as negative control group. Each cavity of the remaining 65 teeth was filled with dentin debris mixed with 2.5% NaOCl. Another 5 teeth (positive control) were not subjected to the debris removal procedure. Sixty teeth were randomly divided into four experimental groups (n = 15), according to the final irrigation technique used: conventional syringe irrigation (CSI), the Self-Adjusting File (SAF), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and the EndoActivator (EA). Ten milliliters of 2.5% NaOCl was used during the debris removal procedure. The root halves were disassembled, and the amount of remaining debris was evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 30× magnification.
RESULTS: SAF and PUI removed debris significantly better than CSI and EA (P<.05). CSI was the least effective in debris removal (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: None of the irrigation techniques used was able to completely remove debris from simulated IRR cavities.
METHODS: Seventy teeth were prepared using the ProTaper system. The roots were then split longitudinally into two halves, in each of which standardized IRR cavities were prepared. Five teeth were set aside to serve as negative control group. Each cavity of the remaining 65 teeth was filled with dentin debris mixed with 2.5% NaOCl. Another 5 teeth (positive control) were not subjected to the debris removal procedure. Sixty teeth were randomly divided into four experimental groups (n = 15), according to the final irrigation technique used: conventional syringe irrigation (CSI), the Self-Adjusting File (SAF), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and the EndoActivator (EA). Ten milliliters of 2.5% NaOCl was used during the debris removal procedure. The root halves were disassembled, and the amount of remaining debris was evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 30× magnification.
RESULTS: SAF and PUI removed debris significantly better than CSI and EA (P<.05). CSI was the least effective in debris removal (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: None of the irrigation techniques used was able to completely remove debris from simulated IRR cavities.