PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical results of two root canal sealers and three obturation techniques used for non-surgical root canal treatment.
METHODS: A total of two hundred eighty-three root canal treated teeth in two hundred thirty-seven patients with minimum a 6-month follow-up was included for this study. The canals were filled with three different modes: 1) cold lateral condensation (CLC) and AH Plus Sealer; 2) continuous wave condensation technique (CWC) and AH Plus Sealer, and 3) sealer-based obturation technique (SBO) and AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer. The treatment outcome was analysed based on clinical signs and symptoms, and periapical radiograph (periapical index, PAI).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in treatment outcome between various sealers and filling techniques applied. The sealer extrusion was found most frequently in the CWC group (60.67%), followed by SBO (59.21%) and CLC (21.19%) with statistically significant differences (p < .05). The initial diagnosis, previous treatment and sealer extrusion (p < .05) were prognostic factors that affected treatment outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this study, neither the sealer type nor the filling technique affected the treatment success while preoperative diagnosis, previous treatment and sealer extrusion had significant effect on the outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: A bioceramic sealant applied along with the single-cone technique might be considered as an alternative method in root canal obturation.
METHODS: A total of two hundred eighty-three root canal treated teeth in two hundred thirty-seven patients with minimum a 6-month follow-up was included for this study. The canals were filled with three different modes: 1) cold lateral condensation (CLC) and AH Plus Sealer; 2) continuous wave condensation technique (CWC) and AH Plus Sealer, and 3) sealer-based obturation technique (SBO) and AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer. The treatment outcome was analysed based on clinical signs and symptoms, and periapical radiograph (periapical index, PAI).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in treatment outcome between various sealers and filling techniques applied. The sealer extrusion was found most frequently in the CWC group (60.67%), followed by SBO (59.21%) and CLC (21.19%) with statistically significant differences (p < .05). The initial diagnosis, previous treatment and sealer extrusion (p < .05) were prognostic factors that affected treatment outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this study, neither the sealer type nor the filling technique affected the treatment success while preoperative diagnosis, previous treatment and sealer extrusion had significant effect on the outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: A bioceramic sealant applied along with the single-cone technique might be considered as an alternative method in root canal obturation.
摘要：
目的：这项回顾性研究的目的是比较两种根管封闭剂和三种封闭技术用于非手术根管治疗的临床效果。
方法：本研究共纳入两百三十七例患者的二百八十三颗根管治疗牙齿，至少随访6个月。运河充满了三种不同的模式：1）冷侧向冷凝（CLC）和AHPlusSealer；2）连续波冷凝技术（CWC）和AHPlusSealer，和3)基于密封剂的封闭技术(SBO)和AH+生物陶瓷密封剂。根据临床症状和体征分析治疗结果，和根尖X光片(根尖指数，PAI)。
结果：应用的各种密封剂和填充技术在治疗结果上没有显著差异。在CWC组中最常见的是密封剂挤出（60.67％），其次是SBO（59.21%）和CLC（21.19%），差异有统计学意义（p<0.05）。最初的诊断,既往治疗和密封剂挤出(p<.05)是影响治疗结果的预后因素.
结论：根据本研究的结果，封堵器类型和填充技术都不会影响术前诊断时的治疗成功，先前的治疗和密封剂挤压对结果有显著影响。
结论：与单锥技术一起应用的生物陶瓷密封剂可能被认为是根管闭塞的替代方法。
方法：本研究共纳入两百三十七例患者的二百八十三颗根管治疗牙齿，至少随访6个月。运河充满了三种不同的模式：1）冷侧向冷凝（CLC）和AHPlusSealer；2）连续波冷凝技术（CWC）和AHPlusSealer，和3)基于密封剂的封闭技术(SBO)和AH+生物陶瓷密封剂。根据临床症状和体征分析治疗结果，和根尖X光片(根尖指数，PAI)。
结果：应用的各种密封剂和填充技术在治疗结果上没有显著差异。在CWC组中最常见的是密封剂挤出（60.67％），其次是SBO（59.21%）和CLC（21.19%），差异有统计学意义（p<0.05）。最初的诊断,既往治疗和密封剂挤出(p<.05)是影响治疗结果的预后因素.
结论：根据本研究的结果，封堵器类型和填充技术都不会影响术前诊断时的治疗成功，先前的治疗和密封剂挤压对结果有显著影响。
结论：与单锥技术一起应用的生物陶瓷密封剂可能被认为是根管闭塞的替代方法。
