不同改良尖牙拔除方法对非生命尖牙骨折易感性的体外研究。

IF 0.7 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-27 DOI:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_950_24
N J Nagaraj, Peyush Pratap Singh Sikarwar, Debkant Jena, Rini Gangwal, Ipsita Mohanty, Adnan Haider Rizvi
{"title":"不同改良尖牙拔除方法对非生命尖牙骨折易感性的体外研究。","authors":"N J Nagaraj, Peyush Pratap Singh Sikarwar, Debkant Jena, Rini Gangwal, Ipsita Mohanty, Adnan Haider Rizvi","doi":"10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_950_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and objective: </strong>The purpose of this research was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of juvenile teeth that were simulated and strengthened with two different root canal backfilling combinations (gutta-percha/AH26) and biodentine (BD) as apical barriers.</p><p><strong>Materials: </strong>Five groups (<i>n</i> = 10) of removed human maxillary incisors were randomly assigned. There was no instrumentation of the positive control group. To replicate juvenile teeth, coronal access was established for the other groups, and root canals were instrumented using the ProTaper up to F5. Six Peeso reamers were then permitted to pass 1 mm beyond the apex to size 6 (1.7 mm). Either mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) or BD apical barrier was used to fill the top 4 mm of their root canals, and either gutta-percha or AH26 obturation combination was used as the backfill. Coronal access cavities were restored using composite resin. Universal testing equipment was used to record the maximum load required for each tooth to fracture. Analysis of variance was used to examine the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to the negative control groups, the non-instrumented Group I had the greatest fracture resistance and varied considerably (<i>P</i> < 0.05). In contrast, regardless of the backfilling combination, there was no discernible difference between the BD and MTA groups (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In terms of resistance to root fracture, there was no difference between the backfilling combination and the MTA and BD apical barriers.</p>","PeriodicalId":94339,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences","volume":"16 Suppl 4","pages":"S3966-S3969"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11805273/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fracture Susceptibility in Non-Vital Apex Teeth Following Various Modified Apexification Procedure - An <i>In Vitro</i> Study.\",\"authors\":\"N J Nagaraj, Peyush Pratap Singh Sikarwar, Debkant Jena, Rini Gangwal, Ipsita Mohanty, Adnan Haider Rizvi\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_950_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction and objective: </strong>The purpose of this research was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of juvenile teeth that were simulated and strengthened with two different root canal backfilling combinations (gutta-percha/AH26) and biodentine (BD) as apical barriers.</p><p><strong>Materials: </strong>Five groups (<i>n</i> = 10) of removed human maxillary incisors were randomly assigned. There was no instrumentation of the positive control group. To replicate juvenile teeth, coronal access was established for the other groups, and root canals were instrumented using the ProTaper up to F5. Six Peeso reamers were then permitted to pass 1 mm beyond the apex to size 6 (1.7 mm). Either mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) or BD apical barrier was used to fill the top 4 mm of their root canals, and either gutta-percha or AH26 obturation combination was used as the backfill. Coronal access cavities were restored using composite resin. Universal testing equipment was used to record the maximum load required for each tooth to fracture. Analysis of variance was used to examine the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to the negative control groups, the non-instrumented Group I had the greatest fracture resistance and varied considerably (<i>P</i> < 0.05). In contrast, regardless of the backfilling combination, there was no discernible difference between the BD and MTA groups (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In terms of resistance to root fracture, there was no difference between the backfilling combination and the MTA and BD apical barriers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences\",\"volume\":\"16 Suppl 4\",\"pages\":\"S3966-S3969\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11805273/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_950_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/27 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_950_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言与目的:本研究的目的是评估和比较两种不同根管充填组合(杜仲胶/AH26)和生物牙本质(BD)作为根尖屏障模拟和强化幼牙的抗折断性。材料:将拔除的上颌切牙随机分为5组(n = 10)。阳性对照组未使用仪器。为了复制幼牙,其他组建立冠状通道,并使用ProTaper进行根管固定至F5。然后允许6个Peeso铰刀越过顶端1毫米至尺寸6(1.7毫米)。采用三氧化矿物骨料(MTA)或BD根尖屏障充填根管顶部4mm,采用杜仲胶或AH26充填组合充填。冠状通道腔采用复合树脂修复。使用通用测试设备记录每颗牙齿断裂所需的最大载荷。方差分析用于检验数据。结果:与阴性对照组相比,未固定I组骨折阻力最大,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。相比之下,无论何种回填组合,BD组与MTA组之间没有明显差异(P < 0.05)。结论:在抗根断裂方面,充填组合与MTA、BD根尖屏障无明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fracture Susceptibility in Non-Vital Apex Teeth Following Various Modified Apexification Procedure - An In Vitro Study.

Introduction and objective: The purpose of this research was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of juvenile teeth that were simulated and strengthened with two different root canal backfilling combinations (gutta-percha/AH26) and biodentine (BD) as apical barriers.

Materials: Five groups (n = 10) of removed human maxillary incisors were randomly assigned. There was no instrumentation of the positive control group. To replicate juvenile teeth, coronal access was established for the other groups, and root canals were instrumented using the ProTaper up to F5. Six Peeso reamers were then permitted to pass 1 mm beyond the apex to size 6 (1.7 mm). Either mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) or BD apical barrier was used to fill the top 4 mm of their root canals, and either gutta-percha or AH26 obturation combination was used as the backfill. Coronal access cavities were restored using composite resin. Universal testing equipment was used to record the maximum load required for each tooth to fracture. Analysis of variance was used to examine the data.

Results: Compared to the negative control groups, the non-instrumented Group I had the greatest fracture resistance and varied considerably (P < 0.05). In contrast, regardless of the backfilling combination, there was no discernible difference between the BD and MTA groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: In terms of resistance to root fracture, there was no difference between the backfilling combination and the MTA and BD apical barriers.

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