目的:研究的目的是比较两种不同的基于载体的闭塞(CBO)技术达到工作长度并填充三维根管系统的能力,通过使用CBCT。
方法:用CBCT扫描26个提取的磨牙,选择40个弯曲的管道(30°至90°),并分为两个相似的组(n=20)。使用镍钛仪器将所有管道制备为25锥度.06。SC组的运河使用软核闭塞器闭塞(Kerr,罗穆卢斯,Mi,美国),而TH组(n=20)使用Thermafil牙髓闭塞器(塔尔萨牙科产品,塔尔萨,OK,美国),严格遵循制造商的使用说明。通过CBCT分析闭塞,以测量从闭塞的根尖极限到根尖孔的距离以及根管内空隙的存在。
结果:两组在闭塞的根尖范围的平均距离上没有显着差异(t检验,p>0.05)。仅3例发生过充(TH组2例,SC组1例)。两组的空隙百分比都很低,没有显着差异(Z检验,p>0.05)。
结论:两种测试的CBO技术在性能方面显示出相似的积极结果,即使,在与验证者检查后,在大多数情况下,所选择的软核闭塞器的尺寸比Thermafil小一个尺寸。
OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to compare the ability of two different carrier based obturation (CBO) techniques to reach working length and fill in three-dimensions root canal systems, by using CBCT.
METHODS: Twenty-six extracted molars were scanned with CBCT and 40 curved canals were selected (between 30° and 90°) and divided in two similar groups (n=20). All canals were prepared up to size 25 taper .06 using nickel-titanium instrumentation. The canals in the Group SC were obturated using Soft-Core obturators (Kerr, Romulus, Mi, USA), while Group TH canals (n= 20) were obturated using Thermafil Endodontic Obturators (Tulsa Dental Products, Tulsa, OK, USA), strictly following manufacturers\' instructions for use. The obturations were analyzed by means of CBCT to measure the distance from the apical limit of obturation to the apical foramen and the presence of voids inside root canals.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in the mean distance of the apical extent of the obturation (t test, p>0.05). Overfilling occurred in only 3 cases (2 in Group TH and 1 in Group SC). The percentages of voids in both groups were very low with no significant difference (Z test, p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The two tested CBO techniques showed similar positive results in terms of performance, even if, after checking with verifiers, in most cases the size of the selected Soft-Core obturator was one size smaller than Thermafil.