这项体外研究比较了各种封闭技术与生物陶瓷密封剂填充C形3D打印复制品。获得了具有C1构型的C形根管的下颌磨牙。使用M3ProGold文件(UnitedDental,上海,中国)的尺寸为#30/0.04,对牙齿进行了CBCT扫描。创建了60颗3D打印的牙齿复制品。用EndoSealTCS密封器封闭样品(E.TCS;Maruchi,元州,韩国)或EndoSealMTA(E.MTA;Maruchi,元州,韩国)(n=30)。每组中的样品用以下技术(n=10)闭塞:(1)单锥技术(SC),(2)带超声激活(UA)的SC,和(3)冷水力压实(CHC)。孵化后,副本的顶端,中间,在数字显微镜下检查了冠状区域,计算了填充材料和空隙的比例。此外,记录闭塞时间和密封剂挤出。数据采用方差分析,LSD事后,和卡方检验(α=0.05)。结果表明,在根尖第三,E.TCS-SC,E.TCS-UA,E.MTA-UA的空隙率在各组中最低(p<0.05)。在中间的三分之一,用E.TCS-UA填充的样品在所有组中显示出显著较低的空隙百分比(p<0.05)。然而,在第三日冕,E.TCS-CHC显示出最小的空隙百分比(p<0.05),其次是E.TCS-UA和E.MTA-CHC。E.TCS-SC和E.TCS-UA是耗时最少的方法(p<0.05)。密封剂挤压在各组之间有显著差异,E.MTA-UA和E.TCS-UA的发病率较高(p=0.019)。结论是E.TCS-UA是最方便的闭塞技术。然而,在重要的解剖标志附近用高流量和超声波激活封闭运河时,必须小心。
This in vitro study compared various obturation techniques with bioceramic sealers for filling C-shaped 3D-printed replicas. A mandibular molar with a C-shaped root canal with a C1 configuration was obtained. After instrumenting with M3 Pro Gold files (United Dental, Shanghai, China) up to size #30/0.04, a CBCT scan of the tooth was taken. Sixty 3D-printed replicas of the tooth were created. The samples were obturated with EndoSeal TCS
sealer (E. TCS; Maruchi, Wonju, Korea) or EndoSeal MTA (E. MTA; Maruchi, Wonju, Korea) (n = 30). The samples in each group were obturated with the following techniques (n = 10): (1) single-cone technique (SC), (2) SC with ultrasonic activation (UA), and (3) cold hydraulic compaction (CHC). Following incubation, the replicas\' apical, middle, and coronal thirds were inspected under a digital microscope, and the proportion of filling material and void were calculated. Also, the obturation time and
sealer extrusion were recorded. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, LSD post-hoc, and the chi-square tests (α = 0.05). The results indicated that in the apical third, E. TCS-SC, E. TCS-UA, and E. MTA-UA had the lowest void percentage among groups (p < 0.05). In the middle thirds, samples obturated with E. TCS-UA showed a significantly lower void percentage among all groups (p < 0.05). However, in the coronal third, E. TCS-CHC showed the least void percentage (p < 0.05), followed by E. TCS-UA and E. MTA-CHC. The E. TCS-SC and E. TCS-UA were the least time-consuming methods (p < 0.05).
Sealer extrusion significantly differed among the groups, with E. MTA-UA and E. TCS-UA showing higher incidence (p = 0.019). It was concluded that E. TCS-UA was the most convenient obturation technique. However, care must be taken when obturating the canals with high flow and ultrasonic activation near the vital anatomical landmarks.