Abstract：
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different irrigation activation methods on root canal sealer penetration in teeth with simulated internal root resorption (IRR) and calcium hydroxide (CH) applied using a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). 60 incisors with a single root and a single canal were included in the study. IRR cavities were created in the middle third of the root canal, and CH was placed. The samples were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 15) according to the irrigation activation method to be tested: standard needle irrigation (SNI), sonic activation (EDDY), photon-induced photoacoustic flow (PIPS), and shock wave enhanced emission photoacoustic flow (SWEEPS). After irrigation activation applications, the root canals were obturated. Sections of 1.0 ± 0.1 mm were taken from the apical, middle, and coronal regions of each sample. The penetration area (µm2) and maximum penetration depth (µm) of the root canal sealer were examined by CLSM and analyzed using ImageJ software. Statistical analysis was performed with a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test at the P < 0.05 significance level. Among all irrigation activation methods tested, both the penetration area and maximum penetration depth of the root canal sealer were greater in the coronal region than in the apical region (p < 0.05). In the IRR region, there was no difference in terms of maximum penetration depth between PIPS and SWEEPS (p > 0.05), it was highest in SWEEPS (p < 0.05). PIPS and SWEEPS were better than other irrigation activation methods in the penetration of root canal sealer in the resorption areas of teeth with IRR.
摘要：
这项研究的目的是使用共聚焦激光扫描显微镜（CLSM）评估不同冲洗激活方法对模拟内部牙根吸收（IRR）和氢氧化钙（CH）的牙齿根管封闭剂渗透的影响。该研究包括60个单根和单管门牙。IRR空洞在根管的中间三分之一处形成，CH被放置。根据待测的灌洗活化方法将样本随机分为4组(n=15):标准针灌洗(SNI),声波激活（EDDY），光子诱导光声流动（PIPS），和冲击波增强发射光声流（SWEEPS）。灌溉激活应用后，根管闭塞。从根尖取1.0±0.1mm的切片，中间,和每个样本的日冕区域。通过CLSM检查根管封闭剂的穿透面积（µm2）和最大穿透深度（µm），并使用ImageJ软件进行分析。用单向ANOVA和事后Tukey检验在P<0.05显著性水平下进行统计学分析。在所有测试的灌溉激活方法中，冠状区根管封闭剂的穿透面积和最大穿透深度均大于根尖区(p<0.05)。在IRR地区，PIPS和SWEEPS之间的最大穿透深度没有差异（p>0.05），在SWEEPS中最高(p<0.05)。在具有IRR的牙齿吸收区域中，PIPS和SWEEPS在根管封闭剂的渗透方面优于其他冲洗激活方法。
