背景:根管的化学机械准备工作完成后,实现根管系统的完全密封对于确定牙髓治疗的长期成功至关重要。根管闭塞的重要目标是最大程度地减少泄漏并实现足够的密封。因此,具有令人满意的机械特性的材料,是生物相容的,并且具有充分穿透牙本质小管的能力是必需的。
目的:本研究旨在比较两种硅酸钙基密封剂和环氧树脂基密封剂的渗透性和粘合强度,以及检查不同密封剂的渗透性和粘结强度之间的关系。
方法:对最近拔除的39颗人类单根前磨牙进行测量,并将其平均分为三组(n=13),根据用于封闭的密封剂:AHPlusJet,EndoSequence,和AHPlus生物陶瓷密封剂。使用共聚焦激光扫描显微镜从每个牙齿中随机选择三个牙齿(30个切片)用于分析以评估穿透性。每组中剩余的十颗牙齿(90个切片)使用通用测试机进行推出测试。将所有牙齿切成9个0.9mm厚的横向切片,以进行各自的测试(根尖,中间,冠状)。
结果:与EndoSequenceBC封口剂(p=0.002)和AHPlus生物陶瓷封口剂(p=0.006)相比,AHPlusJet表现出明显更低的渗透性和显着更高的粘结强度。EndoSequenceBC密封剂和AHPlus生物陶瓷密封剂在渗透性或粘合强度方面没有显着差异。在渗透性和粘结强度之间没有发现相关性。
结论:在本研究的限制范围内,无论在运河中的位置如何,在牙质渗透率方面,基于生物陶瓷的根管封闭剂的性能似乎优于基于环氧树脂的封闭剂。需要进一步的研究来比较生物陶瓷密封剂的其他生物力学特性,包括设置特性和细菌渗漏。
BACKGROUND: Once the chemo-mechanical preparation of root canals is finished, achieving a complete seal of the root canal system becomes crucial in determining the long-term success of endodontic treatment. The important goals of root canal obturation are to minimize leakage and achieve an adequate seal. Thus, a material that possesses satisfactory mechanical characteristics, is biocompatible, and has the ability to penetrate the dentine tubules adequately is needed.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the penetrability and bond strength between two calcium silicate-based sealers and an epoxy resin-based sealer, as well as examine the relationship between penetrability and bond strength for the different sealers.
METHODS: Thirty-nine recently extracted single-rooted human premolar teeth were instrumented and divided evenly into three groups (n = 13), according to the sealer used for obturation: AH Plus Jet, EndoSequence, and AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer. Three teeth (30 slices) were randomly selected out of each for analysis using confocal laser scanning microscopy to assess penetrability. The remaining ten teeth (90 slices) in each group were subject to push-out tests using a universal testing machine. All teeth were sectioned into nine transverse slices of 0.9 mm thickness for their respective tests (apical, middle, coronal).
RESULTS: AH Plus Jet exhibited significantly lower penetrability and significantly higher bond strength compared to EndoSequence BC sealer (p = 0.002) and AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer (p = 0.006). There was no significant difference between EndoSequence BC sealer and AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer in terms of either penetrability or bond strength. No correlation was found between penetrability and bond strength.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this study and regardless of the location in the canal, the bioceramic based root canal sealers appeared to perform better than the epoxy resin-based sealer in terms of dentinal penetration rate. Further studies are required to compare other biomechanical properties of bioceramic sealers including setting characteristics and bacterial leakage.