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。

Q3 Dentistry
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:超声波振动拔除金属桩似乎是牙髓病学家和全科医生的一致选择,因为它能提供最好的效果和最高的安全性。本研究比较了在使用 1 个或 2 个超声波装置时,超声波振动去除金属桩(MP)所需的时间:根据使用超声波装置的数量(G1-1 装置)和(G2-2 装置)将 105 名患者的 115 颗带有金属桩的牙齿分为两组,这些患者都有进行非手术牙髓再治疗的指征。在 G1 组中,在牙水泥线的磨损处(约 2 毫米深)使用经金属毛刺磨损 MP。然后,在牙柱的水平面启动连接到超声波装置上的超声波探头,功率为 100%,并在距离牙齿轴向表面 1 毫米的水平面持续喷水。每隔 10 秒在颊面和舌面之间改变探针的位置,直到 MP 移除为止。在 G2 中,执行的程序与 G1 中描述的相同,但在颊面和舌面同时启动两个超声波探头,直到 MP 被去除。使用天文钟记录去除每个 MP 所需的振动时间:使用一个超声波装置去除 MP 所需的平均时间为 131.10±29.68 秒(平均值±标准误),使用两个装置去除 MP 所需的平均时间为 24.86±6.88 秒。使用两个超声波装置去除 MP 所需的时间明显少于使用一个超声波装置(PC 结论:使用两个超声波装置的技术证明了这一点:事实证明,使用两个超声波装置的技术比只使用一个超声波装置的技术更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
Iranian Endodontic Journal
Iranian Endodontic Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
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.
×
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