Key Fabiano Souza Pereira, Lia Beatriz Junqueira-Verardo, Edilson José Zafalon, Luiz Fernando Tomazinho, Vanessa Rodrigues do Nascimento, Hugo José Santos Bastos, Alex Yoshiharu Otani
{"title":"在牙髓再治疗中比较单超声波装置和双超声波装置去除金属桩的效率:临床研究。","authors":"Key Fabiano Souza Pereira, Lia Beatriz Junqueira-Verardo, Edilson José Zafalon, Luiz Fernando Tomazinho, Vanessa Rodrigues do Nascimento, Hugo José Santos Bastos, Alex Yoshiharu Otani","doi":"10.22037/iej.v19i3.44817","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Ultrasonic vibration for metallic post removal seems to be a unanimous choice between endodontists and general practitioners for providing the best results and having the highest safety. This study compared the time required by ultrasonic vibration for removing metallic post (MP) when 1 or 2 ultrasonics devices are used.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>One hundred and fifteen teeth with MPs from 105 patients, indicated for nonsurgical endodontic retreatment were divided into 2 groups according to the number of ultrasonic devices used (G1-1 device) and (G2-2 devices). In G1, the MP was worn with a transmetal bur, alongside the wear of the cement line (around 2 mm deep). Then, an ultrasonic tip attached to an ultrasonic unit, with a power of 100% was activated at the level of the post, with constant water spray at a level of 1 mm above the axial surface of the tooth. The position of the tip was changed between buccal and lingual surfaces every 10 seconds until the MP was removed. In G2 the same procedures were performed as described in G1, but two ultrasonic tips were activated simultaneously at buccal and lingual surfaces until the MP was removed. The vibration time necessary for removing each MP was recorded using a chronometer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean time was 131.10±29.68 seconds (mean±standard error of the mean) for MP removal using one ultrasonic device, and 24.86±6.88 seconds for two devices. The time required for MP removal using two ultrasonic devices was significantly less than when using one ultrasonic device (<i>P</i><0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The technique with 2 ultrasonic devices proved to be more efficient than the one using only 1 ultrasonic device.</p>","PeriodicalId":14534,"journal":{"name":"Iranian Endodontic Journal","volume":"19 3","pages":"189-192"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287037/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Efficiency of Single versus Dual Ultrasonic Devices for Metallic Post Removal in Endodontic Retreatment: A Clinical Study.\",\"authors\":\"Key Fabiano Souza Pereira, Lia Beatriz Junqueira-Verardo, Edilson José Zafalon, Luiz Fernando Tomazinho, Vanessa Rodrigues do Nascimento, Hugo José Santos Bastos, Alex Yoshiharu Otani\",\"doi\":\"10.22037/iej.v19i3.44817\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Ultrasonic vibration for metallic post removal seems to be a unanimous choice between endodontists and general practitioners for providing the best results and having the highest safety. This study compared the time required by ultrasonic vibration for removing metallic post (MP) when 1 or 2 ultrasonics devices are used.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>One hundred and fifteen teeth with MPs from 105 patients, indicated for nonsurgical endodontic retreatment were divided into 2 groups according to the number of ultrasonic devices used (G1-1 device) and (G2-2 devices). In G1, the MP was worn with a transmetal bur, alongside the wear of the cement line (around 2 mm deep). Then, an ultrasonic tip attached to an ultrasonic unit, with a power of 100% was activated at the level of the post, with constant water spray at a level of 1 mm above the axial surface of the tooth. The position of the tip was changed between buccal and lingual surfaces every 10 seconds until the MP was removed. In G2 the same procedures were performed as described in G1, but two ultrasonic tips were activated simultaneously at buccal and lingual surfaces until the MP was removed. The vibration time necessary for removing each MP was recorded using a chronometer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean time was 131.10±29.68 seconds (mean±standard error of the mean) for MP removal using one ultrasonic device, and 24.86±6.88 seconds for two devices. The time required for MP removal using two ultrasonic devices was significantly less than when using one ultrasonic device (<i>P</i><0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The technique with 2 ultrasonic devices proved to be more efficient than the one using only 1 ultrasonic device.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Iranian Endodontic Journal\",\"volume\":\"19 3\",\"pages\":\"189-192\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287037/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Iranian Endodontic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.v19i3.44817\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iranian Endodontic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.v19i3.44817","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing the Efficiency of Single versus Dual Ultrasonic Devices for Metallic Post Removal in Endodontic Retreatment: A Clinical Study.
Introduction: Ultrasonic vibration for metallic post removal seems to be a unanimous choice between endodontists and general practitioners for providing the best results and having the highest safety. This study compared the time required by ultrasonic vibration for removing metallic post (MP) when 1 or 2 ultrasonics devices are used.
Materials and methods: One hundred and fifteen teeth with MPs from 105 patients, indicated for nonsurgical endodontic retreatment were divided into 2 groups according to the number of ultrasonic devices used (G1-1 device) and (G2-2 devices). In G1, the MP was worn with a transmetal bur, alongside the wear of the cement line (around 2 mm deep). Then, an ultrasonic tip attached to an ultrasonic unit, with a power of 100% was activated at the level of the post, with constant water spray at a level of 1 mm above the axial surface of the tooth. The position of the tip was changed between buccal and lingual surfaces every 10 seconds until the MP was removed. In G2 the same procedures were performed as described in G1, but two ultrasonic tips were activated simultaneously at buccal and lingual surfaces until the MP was removed. The vibration time necessary for removing each MP was recorded using a chronometer.
Results: The mean time was 131.10±29.68 seconds (mean±standard error of the mean) for MP removal using one ultrasonic device, and 24.86±6.88 seconds for two devices. The time required for MP removal using two ultrasonic devices was significantly less than when using one ultrasonic device (P<0.001).
Conclusion: The technique with 2 ultrasonic devices proved to be more efficient than the one using only 1 ultrasonic device.
期刊介绍:
The Iranian Endodontic Journal (IEJ) is an international peer-reviewed biomedical publication, the aim of which is to provide a scientific medium of communication for researchers throughout the globe. IEJ aims to publish the highest quality articles, both clinical and scientific, on all aspects of Endodontics. The journal is an official Journal of the Iranian Center for Endodontic Research (ICER) and the Iranian Association of Endodontists (IAE). The Journal welcomes articles related to the scientific or applied aspects of endodontics e.g. original researches, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, review articles, clinical trials, case series/reports, hypotheses, letters to the editor, etc. From the beginning (i.e. since 2006), the IEJ was the first open access endodontic journal in the world, which gave readers free and instant access to published articles and enabling them faster discovery of the latest endodontic research.