比较和评价单根牙激光、超声针尖和常规针尖制备牙根后的微裂纹和涂抹层:“扫描电镜研究”。

Jyotirmoyee Bhanja, Shyam Agrawal, Rachit Mathur, Deepak Sharma, Shaista Gazal, Anuja Ray Awadesh
{"title":"比较和评价单根牙激光、超声针尖和常规针尖制备牙根后的微裂纹和涂抹层:“扫描电镜研究”。","authors":"Jyotirmoyee Bhanja, Shyam Agrawal, Rachit Mathur, Deepak Sharma, Shaista Gazal, Anuja Ray Awadesh","doi":"10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_733_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Evaluation of root-end cavities for the existence of microcracks and smear layer with laser, ultrasonic tip by conventional bur, and control group in single-rooted tooth by scanning electron microscope (SEM).</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Fifty-two extracted fully developed single-rooted teeth were decoronated, cleaned, shaped, and obturated with F2 GP, and 3 mm roots were removed. Laser, ultrasonic tip (AS 3Dretro-tip on Newtron-SATELEC, Acteon), and conventional bur (size 010 round) were used to create root-end preparation. No root-end cavities were produced in the control group. SEM was used to check all samples for microcracks and smear layers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant difference was found between microcrack formation in laser and conventional bur preparation (P = 0.002), and ultrasonic and laser (P = 0.015). Nonsignificant difference was found between ultrasonic and conventional bur (P = 0.046). The study concluded that maximum cracks were seen in conventional bur formation at the apical end of the root (0.85 ± 0.36) followed by the ultrasonic method (0.54 ± 0.23).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Root-end cavities prepared with laser give fewer microcracks and less production of smear layer compared to the ultrasonic tip and conventional bur.</p>","PeriodicalId":516842,"journal":{"name":"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics","volume":"28 1","pages":"16-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835347/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To compare and evaluate microcracks and smear layer after root end preparation by laser, ultrasonic tip, and conventional bur in single-rooted teeth: \\\"Scanning electron microscope study\\\".\",\"authors\":\"Jyotirmoyee Bhanja, Shyam Agrawal, Rachit Mathur, Deepak Sharma, Shaista Gazal, Anuja Ray Awadesh\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_733_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Evaluation of root-end cavities for the existence of microcracks and smear layer with laser, ultrasonic tip by conventional bur, and control group in single-rooted tooth by scanning electron microscope (SEM).</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Fifty-two extracted fully developed single-rooted teeth were decoronated, cleaned, shaped, and obturated with F2 GP, and 3 mm roots were removed. Laser, ultrasonic tip (AS 3Dretro-tip on Newtron-SATELEC, Acteon), and conventional bur (size 010 round) were used to create root-end preparation. No root-end cavities were produced in the control group. SEM was used to check all samples for microcracks and smear layers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant difference was found between microcrack formation in laser and conventional bur preparation (P = 0.002), and ultrasonic and laser (P = 0.015). Nonsignificant difference was found between ultrasonic and conventional bur (P = 0.046). The study concluded that maximum cracks were seen in conventional bur formation at the apical end of the root (0.85 ± 0.36) followed by the ultrasonic method (0.54 ± 0.23).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Root-end cavities prepared with laser give fewer microcracks and less production of smear layer compared to the ultrasonic tip and conventional bur.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":516842,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"16-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835347/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_733_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_733_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:应用扫描电镜(SEM)评价单根牙牙根端牙洞存在微裂纹和涂抹层的情况,采用激光、超声针尖法和常规超声针尖法分别评价单根牙牙根端牙洞存在微裂纹和涂抹层的情况。方法:拔除52颗发育完全的单根牙齿,用F2 GP进行装饰、清洁、塑形和封闭,去除3mm的牙根。采用激光、超声针尖(newton - satelec、Acteon上的as3dretro -针尖)和常规针尖(尺寸为010圆)进行根端制备。对照组未产生根端空腔。使用扫描电镜检查所有样品的微裂纹和涂抹层。结果:激光与常规刀片制备的微裂纹形成差异有统计学意义(P = 0.002),超声与激光制备的微裂纹形成差异有统计学意义(P = 0.015)。超声检查与常规检查差异无统计学意义(P = 0.046)。结果表明,常规牙根形成的最大裂纹位于牙根的根尖端(0.85±0.36),其次是超声法(0.54±0.23)。结论:与超声针尖和常规针尖相比,激光制备的根端腔微裂纹少,产生的涂抹层少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
To compare and evaluate microcracks and smear layer after root end preparation by laser, ultrasonic tip, and conventional bur in single-rooted teeth: "Scanning electron microscope study".

Aim: Evaluation of root-end cavities for the existence of microcracks and smear layer with laser, ultrasonic tip by conventional bur, and control group in single-rooted tooth by scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Methodology: Fifty-two extracted fully developed single-rooted teeth were decoronated, cleaned, shaped, and obturated with F2 GP, and 3 mm roots were removed. Laser, ultrasonic tip (AS 3Dretro-tip on Newtron-SATELEC, Acteon), and conventional bur (size 010 round) were used to create root-end preparation. No root-end cavities were produced in the control group. SEM was used to check all samples for microcracks and smear layers.

Results: A significant difference was found between microcrack formation in laser and conventional bur preparation (P = 0.002), and ultrasonic and laser (P = 0.015). Nonsignificant difference was found between ultrasonic and conventional bur (P = 0.046). The study concluded that maximum cracks were seen in conventional bur formation at the apical end of the root (0.85 ± 0.36) followed by the ultrasonic method (0.54 ± 0.23).

Conclusion: Root-end cavities prepared with laser give fewer microcracks and less production of smear layer compared to the ultrasonic tip and conventional bur.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信