探索有效性和安全性:第三级医疗机构根管治疗中不同冲洗溶液的比较评估。

IF 0.7 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-31 DOI:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_277_24
Yesha Yadav, C K Anil, Neshaneni Satish Kumar, Divya Batra, Ishita Kapur, Mudita Chaturvedi, Mohammed Mustafa
{"title":"探索有效性和安全性:第三级医疗机构根管治疗中不同冲洗溶液的比较评估。","authors":"Yesha Yadav, C K Anil, Neshaneni Satish Kumar, Divya Batra, Ishita Kapur, Mudita Chaturvedi, Mohammed Mustafa","doi":"10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_277_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In order to completely remove bacteria and debris from the root canal system, root canal treatment (RCT) calls for efficient irrigation methods. There is still a lack of research on the relative safety and efficacy of various irrigation systems in tertiary care settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients receiving RCT at a tertiary care endodontic clinic were included in a prospective comparison research of 150 subjects. One of four irrigation solutions-sodium hypochlorite, chlorhexidine, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), or a combination of the three-was given to patients at random. Following surgery, microbial decrease and patient-reported pain levels were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis showed that there were significant differences (<i>P</i> < 0.05) in microbial decrease between the irrigation solution groups. EDTA, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorhexidine were the next three groups with the biggest mean log decrease in microbial counts, after the combination group. Nonetheless, there were no appreciable variations in the groups' patient-reported pain levels (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results imply that microbial reduction in RCT is highly influenced by the irrigation solution selection. Without having an impact on the pain sensations reported by the patients, the combination of irrigation solutions showed higher efficacy in microbial control. These findings highlight how crucial it is to choose an irrigation solution carefully in order to maximize endodontic outcomes in tertiary care settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":94339,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences","volume":"16 Suppl 3","pages":"S2546-S2548"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11426867/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Efficacy and Safety: Comparative Evaluation of Different Irrigation Solutions in Root Canal Therapy at a Tertiary Care Setting.\",\"authors\":\"Yesha Yadav, C K Anil, Neshaneni Satish Kumar, Divya Batra, Ishita Kapur, Mudita Chaturvedi, Mohammed Mustafa\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_277_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In order to completely remove bacteria and debris from the root canal system, root canal treatment (RCT) calls for efficient irrigation methods. There is still a lack of research on the relative safety and efficacy of various irrigation systems in tertiary care settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients receiving RCT at a tertiary care endodontic clinic were included in a prospective comparison research of 150 subjects. One of four irrigation solutions-sodium hypochlorite, chlorhexidine, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), or a combination of the three-was given to patients at random. Following surgery, microbial decrease and patient-reported pain levels were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis showed that there were significant differences (<i>P</i> < 0.05) in microbial decrease between the irrigation solution groups. EDTA, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorhexidine were the next three groups with the biggest mean log decrease in microbial counts, after the combination group. Nonetheless, there were no appreciable variations in the groups' patient-reported pain levels (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results imply that microbial reduction in RCT is highly influenced by the irrigation solution selection. Without having an impact on the pain sensations reported by the patients, the combination of irrigation solutions showed higher efficacy in microbial control. These findings highlight how crucial it is to choose an irrigation solution carefully in order to maximize endodontic outcomes in tertiary care settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences\",\"volume\":\"16 Suppl 3\",\"pages\":\"S2546-S2548\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11426867/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_277_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_277_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为了彻底清除根管系统中的细菌和碎屑,根管治疗(RCT)需要高效的灌洗方法。在三级医疗机构中,对各种冲洗系统的相对安全性和有效性仍缺乏研究:方法:在一家三级医疗机构的根管治疗诊所接受根管治疗的患者被纳入一项前瞻性对比研究,研究对象为 150 人。患者随机获得四种冲洗溶液中的一种--次氯酸钠、洗必泰、乙二胺四乙酸(EDTA)或三种溶液的组合。手术后,对微生物减少情况和患者报告的疼痛程度进行了评估:分析表明,不同冲洗溶液组的微生物减少率存在显著差异(P < 0.05)。乙二胺四乙酸(EDTA)、次氯酸钠和洗必泰是微生物数量平均对数下降最大的三个组别,仅次于混合组。尽管如此,各组患者报告的疼痛程度没有明显差异(P > 0.05):我们的研究结果表明,RCT 中微生物数量的减少在很大程度上受冲洗液选择的影响。在不影响患者疼痛感的情况下,冲洗液组合在控制微生物方面表现出更高的功效。这些研究结果突显了在三级医疗机构中谨慎选择冲洗液以最大限度地提高牙髓治疗效果的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring Efficacy and Safety: Comparative Evaluation of Different Irrigation Solutions in Root Canal Therapy at a Tertiary Care Setting.

Background: In order to completely remove bacteria and debris from the root canal system, root canal treatment (RCT) calls for efficient irrigation methods. There is still a lack of research on the relative safety and efficacy of various irrigation systems in tertiary care settings.

Methods: Patients receiving RCT at a tertiary care endodontic clinic were included in a prospective comparison research of 150 subjects. One of four irrigation solutions-sodium hypochlorite, chlorhexidine, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), or a combination of the three-was given to patients at random. Following surgery, microbial decrease and patient-reported pain levels were evaluated.

Results: The analysis showed that there were significant differences (P < 0.05) in microbial decrease between the irrigation solution groups. EDTA, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorhexidine were the next three groups with the biggest mean log decrease in microbial counts, after the combination group. Nonetheless, there were no appreciable variations in the groups' patient-reported pain levels (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Our results imply that microbial reduction in RCT is highly influenced by the irrigation solution selection. Without having an impact on the pain sensations reported by the patients, the combination of irrigation solutions showed higher efficacy in microbial control. These findings highlight how crucial it is to choose an irrigation solution carefully in order to maximize endodontic outcomes in tertiary care settings.

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
CiteScore
1.40
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信