Tringa Kelmendi, Donika Bajrami-Shabani, Blerim Kamberi
{"title":"Vlerësimi i vetive obturuese të pastës Apexit® dhe Pulp Canal Sealer®","authors":"Tringa Kelmendi, Donika Bajrami-Shabani, Blerim Kamberi","doi":"10.59138/ulawzivdqcuwr","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate in vivo bacterial leakage after obturation of the tooth root canal with Apexit and Pulp Canal Sealer pastes. Thirty-two extracted human teeth were included in this research. The biomechanical processing was done with the crown-down technique and 2% NaOCl and 17% EDTA were used as irrig- ants. After instrumentation, the tooth roots were divided into two experimental groups: 16 teeth of the first group were obturated with the Apexit endodontic paste and 16 teeth of the second group were obturated with the En- doRez endodontic paste. After the obturation of the root canal, the teeth were stored in the Class II Safety Cabinet, Meti SAFE (Lamsystems, Berlin, Germany) for 7 days. For the determination of the leakage, the two-hole method was used and the duration of the research was 33 days. The average time of appearance of leakage in Pulp Canal Sealer was 5.3 days, while in Apexit it was 1.0 days. In the Pulp Canal Sealer group, turbidity appeared in 37.5% of cases, while in the group obturated with Apexit in 6.3% of cases. From our data, it can be concluded that Apexit paste is a better root canal obturation agent compared to Pulp Canal Sealer.","PeriodicalId":161655,"journal":{"name":"Revista e Stomatologëve të Kosovës","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista e Stomatologëve të Kosovës","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59138/ulawzivdqcuwr","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较和评估牙根管封闭后牙根管与牙髓管密封膏的体内细菌泄漏。本研究包括32颗拔除的人牙。生物力学处理采用冠状沉降技术,用2%的NaOCl和17%的EDTA作为灌溉剂。预备完成后,将牙根分为两组,第一组16颗牙用apexexit根管糊剂封闭,第二组16颗牙用En- doRez根管糊剂封闭。根管封闭后,将牙齿保存在Meti SAFE (Lamsystems, Berlin, Germany) II级安全柜中7天。渗漏量的测定采用双孔法,研究时间为33天。髓管封闭术中出现渗漏的平均时间为5.3天,而尖脱术中出现渗漏的平均时间为1.0天。髓管封闭术组有37.5%的病例出现浑浊,而根尖封闭术组有6.3%的病例出现浑浊。从我们的数据可以得出结论,与髓管封闭剂相比,根管出口糊剂是一种更好的根管封闭剂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vlerësimi i vetive obturuese të pastës Apexit® dhe Pulp Canal Sealer®
The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate in vivo bacterial leakage after obturation of the tooth root canal with Apexit and Pulp Canal Sealer pastes. Thirty-two extracted human teeth were included in this research. The biomechanical processing was done with the crown-down technique and 2% NaOCl and 17% EDTA were used as irrig- ants. After instrumentation, the tooth roots were divided into two experimental groups: 16 teeth of the first group were obturated with the Apexit endodontic paste and 16 teeth of the second group were obturated with the En- doRez endodontic paste. After the obturation of the root canal, the teeth were stored in the Class II Safety Cabinet, Meti SAFE (Lamsystems, Berlin, Germany) for 7 days. For the determination of the leakage, the two-hole method was used and the duration of the research was 33 days. The average time of appearance of leakage in Pulp Canal Sealer was 5.3 days, while in Apexit it was 1.0 days. In the Pulp Canal Sealer group, turbidity appeared in 37.5% of cases, while in the group obturated with Apexit in 6.3% of cases. From our data, it can be concluded that Apexit paste is a better root canal obturation agent compared to Pulp Canal Sealer.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信