{"title":"比较三种牙髓封闭剂在使用单锥封闭技术后的局部和全牙本质结合强度:一项体外研究。","authors":"Mohamed El Sayed","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to investigate and compare the total and sectional bond strengths of three endodontic sealers when used with the single-cone obturation technique.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Forty-five human maxillary central incisors were prepared and divided into three groups according to the type of endodontic sealer: Group I (Gutta-percha/AH Plus Jet), group II (Gutta-percha/GuttaFlow 2), and group III (RealSeal/RealSeal SE). All canals were filled with the single-cone technique. Roots were sectioned and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis was performed on randomly selected samples from each group to assess the root canal filling interfaces. A root section from each root level was subjected to a push-out test. The sectional and total bond strengths were analyzed, then the failure modes were investigated. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test, and alpha was set at 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant differences in bond strength values were observed (<i>p</i> < 0.05), with RealSeal SE demonstrating the highest bond strength, particularly in the middle and apical root regions. On the contrary, GuttaFlow 2 exhibited the lowest bond strength. Cohesive failure modes were more common for AH Plus Jet and GuttaFlow 2, while RealSeal SE showed cohesive and adhesive failures. The SEM analysis revealed that each sealer exhibited different levels of adaptability to dentin and core material.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RealSeal SE and AH Plus Jet showed superior bond strength compared to GuttaFlow 2 when the single-cone obturation technique was used. The apical root sections exhibited the highest bond strength for all sealers, except for AH Plus Jet, which showed a higher bond strength in the coronal root sections.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The current findings could guide dental professionals in choosing the most appropriate sealer for the single-cone obturation technique, potentially leading to more effective obturation procedures, especially for teeth requiring post and core restoration. How to cite this article: El Sayed M. Comparing Sectional and Total Dentin Bond Strengths of Three Endodontic Sealers after Using the Single-cone Obturation Technique: An <i>In Vtro</i> Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(10):976-982.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":"25 10","pages":"976-982"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Sectional and Total Dentin Bond Strengths of Three Endodontic Sealers after Using the Single-cone Obturation Technique: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed El Sayed\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to investigate and compare the total and sectional bond strengths of three endodontic sealers when used with the single-cone obturation technique.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Forty-five human maxillary central incisors were prepared and divided into three groups according to the type of endodontic sealer: Group I (Gutta-percha/AH Plus Jet), group II (Gutta-percha/GuttaFlow 2), and group III (RealSeal/RealSeal SE). All canals were filled with the single-cone technique. Roots were sectioned and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis was performed on randomly selected samples from each group to assess the root canal filling interfaces. A root section from each root level was subjected to a push-out test. The sectional and total bond strengths were analyzed, then the failure modes were investigated. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test, and alpha was set at 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant differences in bond strength values were observed (<i>p</i> < 0.05), with RealSeal SE demonstrating the highest bond strength, particularly in the middle and apical root regions. On the contrary, GuttaFlow 2 exhibited the lowest bond strength. Cohesive failure modes were more common for AH Plus Jet and GuttaFlow 2, while RealSeal SE showed cohesive and adhesive failures. The SEM analysis revealed that each sealer exhibited different levels of adaptability to dentin and core material.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RealSeal SE and AH Plus Jet showed superior bond strength compared to GuttaFlow 2 when the single-cone obturation technique was used. The apical root sections exhibited the highest bond strength for all sealers, except for AH Plus Jet, which showed a higher bond strength in the coronal root sections.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The current findings could guide dental professionals in choosing the most appropriate sealer for the single-cone obturation technique, potentially leading to more effective obturation procedures, especially for teeth requiring post and core restoration. How to cite this article: El Sayed M. Comparing Sectional and Total Dentin Bond Strengths of Three Endodontic Sealers after Using the Single-cone Obturation Technique: An <i>In Vtro</i> Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(10):976-982.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"volume\":\"25 10\",\"pages\":\"976-982\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3765\",\"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":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3765","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
目的:本研究旨在研究和比较三种根管封闭剂与单锥体封闭技术的总结合强度和局部结合强度。材料与方法:制备45颗人上颌中切牙,根据根管密封剂的类型分为3组:1组(古塔-percha/AH Plus Jet), 2组(古塔-percha/GuttaFlow 2), 3组(RealSeal/RealSeal SE)。所有的管道都用单锥技术填充。每组随机抽取样本进行根管切片和扫描电镜(SEM)分析,评估根管充填界面。每个根层的根段都进行了推出测试。分析了截面和总粘结强度,并对其破坏模式进行了研究。统计学分析采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)和Tukey’s检验,alpha值设为0.05。结果:两种牙的结合强度值有显著差异(p < 0.05),其中RealSeal SE的结合强度最高,特别是在中根和根尖区域。相反,GuttaFlow 2的粘结强度最低。粘结失效模式在AH Plus Jet和GuttaFlow 2中更为常见,而RealSeal SE则表现为粘结失效和粘结失效。扫描电镜分析显示,每种封口剂对牙本质和岩心材料的适应性程度不同。结论:与GuttaFlow 2相比,RealSeal SE和AH Plus Jet在使用单锥封闭技术时具有更好的粘结强度。除AH Plus Jet在冠状根段表现出更高的结合强度外,所有封口剂的根尖段表现出最高的结合强度。临床意义:目前的研究结果可以指导牙科专业人员为单锥封闭技术选择最合适的密封剂,有可能导致更有效的封闭手术,特别是对于需要桩核修复的牙齿。El Sayed M.比较三种根管封闭剂在使用单锥封闭技术后的局部和全牙本质结合强度:一项体外研究。[J]现代医学学报;2009;25(10):976-982。
Comparing Sectional and Total Dentin Bond Strengths of Three Endodontic Sealers after Using the Single-cone Obturation Technique: An In Vitro Study.
Aim: This study aimed to investigate and compare the total and sectional bond strengths of three endodontic sealers when used with the single-cone obturation technique.
Materials and methods: Forty-five human maxillary central incisors were prepared and divided into three groups according to the type of endodontic sealer: Group I (Gutta-percha/AH Plus Jet), group II (Gutta-percha/GuttaFlow 2), and group III (RealSeal/RealSeal SE). All canals were filled with the single-cone technique. Roots were sectioned and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis was performed on randomly selected samples from each group to assess the root canal filling interfaces. A root section from each root level was subjected to a push-out test. The sectional and total bond strengths were analyzed, then the failure modes were investigated. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test, and alpha was set at 0.05.
Results: Significant differences in bond strength values were observed (p < 0.05), with RealSeal SE demonstrating the highest bond strength, particularly in the middle and apical root regions. On the contrary, GuttaFlow 2 exhibited the lowest bond strength. Cohesive failure modes were more common for AH Plus Jet and GuttaFlow 2, while RealSeal SE showed cohesive and adhesive failures. The SEM analysis revealed that each sealer exhibited different levels of adaptability to dentin and core material.
Conclusion: RealSeal SE and AH Plus Jet showed superior bond strength compared to GuttaFlow 2 when the single-cone obturation technique was used. The apical root sections exhibited the highest bond strength for all sealers, except for AH Plus Jet, which showed a higher bond strength in the coronal root sections.
Clinical significance: The current findings could guide dental professionals in choosing the most appropriate sealer for the single-cone obturation technique, potentially leading to more effective obturation procedures, especially for teeth requiring post and core restoration. How to cite this article: El Sayed M. Comparing Sectional and Total Dentin Bond Strengths of Three Endodontic Sealers after Using the Single-cone Obturation Technique: An In Vtro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(10):976-982.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.