Do fiber tips with different geometric designs affect organic tissue loss in laser-activated irrigation of teeth with immature apex? An in vitro study.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Hulde Korucu, Zeliha Uğur Aydın
{"title":"Do fiber tips with different geometric designs affect organic tissue loss in laser-activated irrigation of teeth with immature apex? An in vitro study.","authors":"Hulde Korucu, Zeliha Uğur Aydın","doi":"10.1007/s10103-025-04345-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study is to quantitatively evaluate the effect of irrigation activation performed with standard needle irrigation (SNI) and laser activated irrigation (LAI) tips of different geometric designs on organic tissue loss in the periapical area of teeth with immature apex. Fifteen single-rooted and canal teeth and seventy-five bovine mucosae were used in this study. An experimental model was constructed, and bovine mucosae were placed in the periapical area. Samples were randomly divided into five groups according to the irrigation activation method (n = 15): SNI, PIPS-flat (F), PIPS-radial (R), SWEEPS-flat (F) and SWEEPS-radial (R). Root canals were irrigated with totally 15 mL of 2% NaOCl for three irrigation cycles. Bovine mucosae were weighed before and after the irrigation activation protocols. The difference between the initial and final weights measured organic tissue loss. One-way analysis of variance was performed, followed by post-hoc Tukey significant difference test (p < 0.05). The amount of organic tissue loss in PIPS-R was found to be significantly higher compared to PIPS-F (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the amount of periapical organic tissue loss among all other tested irrigation activation methods (p > 0.05). All irrigation activation methods caused organic tissue loss. PIPS-R caused more organic tissue loss than PIPS-F, while no difference was found between SWEEPS-F and SWEEPS-R used at the same power setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":17978,"journal":{"name":"Lasers in Medical Science","volume":"40 1","pages":"91"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11828837/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lasers in Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-025-04345-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study is to quantitatively evaluate the effect of irrigation activation performed with standard needle irrigation (SNI) and laser activated irrigation (LAI) tips of different geometric designs on organic tissue loss in the periapical area of teeth with immature apex. Fifteen single-rooted and canal teeth and seventy-five bovine mucosae were used in this study. An experimental model was constructed, and bovine mucosae were placed in the periapical area. Samples were randomly divided into five groups according to the irrigation activation method (n = 15): SNI, PIPS-flat (F), PIPS-radial (R), SWEEPS-flat (F) and SWEEPS-radial (R). Root canals were irrigated with totally 15 mL of 2% NaOCl for three irrigation cycles. Bovine mucosae were weighed before and after the irrigation activation protocols. The difference between the initial and final weights measured organic tissue loss. One-way analysis of variance was performed, followed by post-hoc Tukey significant difference test (p < 0.05). The amount of organic tissue loss in PIPS-R was found to be significantly higher compared to PIPS-F (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the amount of periapical organic tissue loss among all other tested irrigation activation methods (p > 0.05). All irrigation activation methods caused organic tissue loss. PIPS-R caused more organic tissue loss than PIPS-F, while no difference was found between SWEEPS-F and SWEEPS-R used at the same power setting.

不同几何形状的纤维尖端是否影响未成熟尖牙激光激活冲洗时有机组织的损失?一项体外研究。
本研究的目的是定量评价不同几何设计的标准针灌(SNI)和激光激活灌(LAI)针尖对未成熟尖牙根尖周区有机组织损失的影响。本研究使用15颗单根牙和75颗牛粘膜。建立实验模型,将牛粘膜置于根尖周区。按灌溉激活方式随机分为5组(n = 15): SNI、PIPS-flat (F)、PIPS-radial (R)、SWEEPS-flat (F)和SWEEPS-radial (R)。用2% NaOCl共15 mL灌洗根管,灌洗3个周期。在灌溉激活方案前后对牛粘膜进行称重。初始重量和最终重量之间的差异测量了有机组织的损失。采用单因素方差分析,事后Tukey显著性差异检验(p 0.05)。所有灌溉激活方法均引起有机组织损失。PIPS-R比PIPS-F造成更多的有机组织损失,而在相同功率设置下,sweps - f和sweps - r之间没有发现差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Lasers in Medical Science
Lasers in Medical Science 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Lasers in Medical Science (LIMS) has established itself as the leading international journal in the rapidly expanding field of medical and dental applications of lasers and light. It provides a forum for the publication of papers on the technical, experimental, and clinical aspects of the use of medical lasers, including lasers in surgery, endoscopy, angioplasty, hyperthermia of tumors, and photodynamic therapy. In addition to medical laser applications, LIMS presents high-quality manuscripts on a wide range of dental topics, including aesthetic dentistry, endodontics, orthodontics, and prosthodontics. The journal publishes articles on the medical and dental applications of novel laser technologies, light delivery systems, sensors to monitor laser effects, basic laser-tissue interactions, and the modeling of laser-tissue interactions. Beyond laser applications, LIMS features articles relating to the use of non-laser light-tissue interactions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信